2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: llc < %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
target datalayout = "e-m:x-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-a:0:32-S32"
|
|
|
|
|
target triple = "i686-pc-windows-msvc"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define void @try_except() #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%__exception_code = alloca i32, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
call void (...) @llvm.localescape(i32* %__exception_code)
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f(i32 1) #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %invoke.cont unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret] unwind to caller
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%0 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @try_except_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %0 to label %__except
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except: ; preds = %__except.ret
|
|
|
|
|
call void @f(i32 2)
|
|
|
|
|
br label %__try.cont
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont: ; preds = %__except, %invoke.cont
|
|
|
|
|
call void @f(i32 3)
|
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
invoke.cont: ; preds = %entry
|
|
|
|
|
br label %__try.cont
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: _try_except:
|
|
|
|
|
; Store state #0
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movl $0, -[[state:[0-9]+]](%ebp)
|
2016-03-31 07:38:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: pushl $1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: calll _f
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movl $-1, -[[state]](%ebp)
|
2016-03-31 07:38:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: pushl $3
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: calll _f
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: retl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; __except
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movl $-1, -[[state]](%ebp)
|
2016-03-31 07:38:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: pushl $2
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: calll _f
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .section .xdata,"dr"
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: L__ehtable$try_except:
|
2015-12-27 14:07:12 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long -1 # ToState
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _try_except_filter_catchall # Filter
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB0_1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define internal i32 @try_except_filter_catchall() #0 {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%0 = call i8* @llvm.frameaddress(i32 1)
|
2019-01-16 08:37:13 +08:00
|
|
|
%1 = call i8* @llvm.eh.recoverfp(i8* bitcast (void ()* @try_except to i8*), i8* %0)
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
%2 = call i8* @llvm.localrecover(i8* bitcast (void ()* @try_except to i8*), i8* %1, i32 0)
|
|
|
|
|
%__exception_code = bitcast i8* %2 to i32*
|
|
|
|
|
%3 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %0, i32 -20
|
|
|
|
|
%4 = bitcast i8* %3 to i8**
|
|
|
|
|
%5 = load i8*, i8** %4, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
%6 = bitcast i8* %5 to { i32*, i8* }*
|
|
|
|
|
%7 = getelementptr inbounds { i32*, i8* }, { i32*, i8* }* %6, i32 0, i32 0
|
|
|
|
|
%8 = load i32*, i32** %7, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
%9 = load i32, i32* %8, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
store i32 %9, i32* %__exception_code, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
ret i32 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define void @nested_exceptions() #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%__exception_code = alloca i32, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
call void (...) @llvm.localescape(i32* %__exception_code)
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret] unwind label %catch.dispatch.11
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%0 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %0 to label %__try.cont
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont: ; preds = %entry, %__except.ret
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.9 unwind label %catch.dispatch.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.5: ; preds = %__try.cont
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret.7] unwind label %catch.dispatch.11
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret.7: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.5
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%1 = catchpad within %cs2 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %1 to label %__try.cont.9
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont.9: ; preds = %__try.cont, %__except.ret.7
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.15 unwind label %catch.dispatch.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.11: ; preds = %catchendblock, %catchendblock.6, %__try.cont.9
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs3 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret.13] unwind label %catch.dispatch.17
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret.13: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.11
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%2 = catchpad within %cs3 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %2 to label %__try.cont.15
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont.15: ; preds = %__try.cont.9, %__except.ret.13
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.35 unwind label %catch.dispatch.17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.17: ; preds = %catchendblock.12, %__try.cont.15
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs4 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret.19] unwind to caller
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret.19: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.17
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%3 = catchpad within %cs4 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %3 to label %__except.20
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.20: ; preds = %__except.ret.19
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.27 unwind label %catch.dispatch.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.23: ; preds = %__except.20
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs5 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret.25] unwind to caller
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret.25: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.23
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%4 = catchpad within %cs5 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %4 to label %__try.cont.27
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont.27: ; preds = %__except.20, %__except.ret.25
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @crash() #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.35 unwind label %catch.dispatch.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.30: ; preds = %__try.cont.27
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs6 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret.32] unwind to caller
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret.32: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.30
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%5 = catchpad within %cs6 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
|
catchret from %5 to label %__try.cont.35
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont.35: ; preds = %__try.cont.15, %__try.cont.27, %__except.ret.32
|
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; This table is equivalent to the one produced by MSVC, even if it isn't in
|
|
|
|
|
; quite the same order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: _nested_exceptions:
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: L__ehtable$nested_exceptions:
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long -1
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long 0
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long 1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long 1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long -1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long -1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long _nested_exceptions_filter_catchall
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .long LBB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @crash() #0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define internal i32 @nested_exceptions_filter_catchall() #0 {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
%0 = call i8* @llvm.frameaddress(i32 1)
|
2019-01-16 08:37:13 +08:00
|
|
|
%1 = call i8* @llvm.eh.recoverfp(i8* bitcast (void ()* @nested_exceptions to i8*), i8* %0)
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
%2 = call i8* @llvm.localrecover(i8* bitcast (void ()* @nested_exceptions to i8*), i8* %1, i32 0)
|
|
|
|
|
%__exception_code3 = bitcast i8* %2 to i32*
|
|
|
|
|
%3 = getelementptr inbounds i8, i8* %0, i32 -20
|
|
|
|
|
%4 = bitcast i8* %3 to i8**
|
|
|
|
|
%5 = load i8*, i8** %4, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
%6 = bitcast i8* %5 to { i32*, i8* }*
|
|
|
|
|
%7 = getelementptr inbounds { i32*, i8* }, { i32*, i8* }* %6, i32 0, i32 0
|
|
|
|
|
%8 = load i32*, i32** %7, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
%9 = load i32, i32* %8, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
store i32 %9, i32* %__exception_code3, align 4
|
|
|
|
|
ret i32 1
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-10-07 07:31:59 +08:00
|
|
|
define void @code_in_catchpad() #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f(i32 1) #3
|
|
|
|
|
to label %__except unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret] unwind to caller
|
2015-10-07 07:31:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
%0 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @try_except_filter_catchall to i8*)]
|
2015-12-16 05:27:27 +08:00
|
|
|
call void @f(i32 2) [ "funclet"(token %0) ]
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
catchret from %0 to label %__except
|
2015-10-07 07:31:59 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except:
|
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: _code_in_catchpad:
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: # %__except.ret
|
2015-10-07 07:31:59 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: movl -24(%ebp), %esp
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: addl $12, %ebp
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: movl $-1, -16(%ebp)
|
2016-03-31 07:38:01 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: pushl $2
|
2015-10-07 07:31:59 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: calll _f
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
|
|
|
|
|
declare i8* @llvm.frameaddress(i32) #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
|
2019-01-16 08:37:13 +08:00
|
|
|
declare i8* @llvm.eh.recoverfp(i8*, i8*) #1
|
2015-09-10 05:10:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
|
|
|
|
|
declare i8* @llvm.localrecover(i8*, i8*, i32) #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @f(i32) #0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @_except_handler3(...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @llvm.localescape(...) #2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
attributes #0 = { "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "no-realign-stack" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
|
|
|
|
|
attributes #1 = { nounwind readnone }
|
|
|
|
|
attributes #2 = { nounwind }
|
|
|
|
|
attributes #3 = { noinline }
|