2015-11-24 03:16:15 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: opt -codegenprepare -S < %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; The following target lines are needed for the test to exercise what it should.
|
|
|
|
; Without these lines, CodeGenPrepare does not try to sink the bitcasts.
|
|
|
|
target datalayout = "e-m:w-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
|
|
|
|
target triple = "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @f()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare void @g(i8*)
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
declare void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata, i64, metadata, metadata) #2
|
2015-11-24 03:16:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CodeGenPrepare will want to sink these bitcasts, but it selects the catchpad
|
|
|
|
; blocks as the place to which the bitcast should be sunk. Since catchpads
|
|
|
|
; do not allow non-phi instructions before the terminator, this isn't possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: @test(
|
|
|
|
define void @test(i32* %addr) personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%x = getelementptr i32, i32* %addr, i32 1
|
|
|
|
%p1 = bitcast i32* %x to i8*
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f()
|
|
|
|
to label %invoke.cont unwind label %catch1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: invoke.cont:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: %y = getelementptr i32, i32* %addr, i32 2
|
|
|
|
invoke.cont:
|
|
|
|
%y = getelementptr i32, i32* %addr, i32 2
|
|
|
|
%p2 = bitcast i32* %y to i8*
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f()
|
|
|
|
to label %done unwind label %catch2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
done:
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch1:
|
[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 %handler1] unwind to caller
|
2015-11-24 03:16:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
handler1:
|
|
|
|
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs1 []
|
|
|
|
br label %catch.shared
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: handler1:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: catchpad within %cs1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: %[[p1:[0-9]+]] = bitcast i32* %x to i8*
|
2015-11-24 03:16:15 +08:00
|
|
|
|
[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
|
|
|
catch2:
|
|
|
|
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %handler2] unwind to caller
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
handler2:
|
|
|
|
%cp2 = catchpad within %cs2 []
|
|
|
|
br label %catch.shared
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: handler2:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: catchpad within %cs2
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: %[[p2:[0-9]+]] = bitcast i32* %y to i8*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: catch.shared:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: %p = phi i8* [ %[[p1]], %handler1 ], [ %[[p2]], %handler2 ]
|
|
|
|
catch.shared:
|
|
|
|
%p = phi i8* [ %p1, %handler1 ], [ %p2, %handler2 ]
|
2015-11-24 03:16:15 +08:00
|
|
|
call void @g(i8* %p)
|
|
|
|
unreachable
|
|
|
|
}
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CodeGenPrepare will want to hoist these llvm.dbg.value calls to the phi, but
|
|
|
|
; there is no insertion point in a catchpad block.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-LABEL: @test_dbg_value(
|
|
|
|
define void @test_dbg_value() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%a = alloca i8
|
|
|
|
%b = alloca i8
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f() to label %next unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
next:
|
|
|
|
invoke void @f() to label %ret unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
ret:
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch:
|
|
|
|
%p = phi i8* [%a, %entry], [%b, %next]
|
[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 %catch] unwind to caller
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch:
|
[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
|
|
|
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs1 []
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
tail call void @llvm.dbg.value(metadata i8* %p, i64 0, metadata !11, metadata !13), !dbg !14
|
[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
|
|
|
call void @g(i8* %p)
|
|
|
|
catchret from %cp1 to label %ret
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: catch.dispatch:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: phi i8
|
[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-NEXT: catchswitch
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NOT: llvm.dbg.value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: catch:
|
[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-NEXT: catchpad
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: call void @llvm.dbg.value
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
!llvm.dbg.cu = !{!0}
|
|
|
|
!llvm.module.flags = !{!7, !8, !9}
|
|
|
|
!llvm.ident = !{!10}
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 08:16:49 +08:00
|
|
|
!0 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C99, file: !1, producer: "clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 254906) (llvm/trunk 254917)", isOptimized: false, runtimeVersion: 0, emissionKind: FullDebug, enums: null, subprograms: !3)
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
!1 = !DIFile(filename: "t.c", directory: "D:\5Csrc\5Cllvm\5Cbuild")
|
|
|
|
!3 = !{!4}
|
|
|
|
!4 = distinct !DISubprogram(name: "test_dbg_value", scope: !1, file: !1, line: 1, type: !5, isLocal: false, isDefinition: true, scopeLine: 1, isOptimized: false, variables: null)
|
|
|
|
!5 = !DISubroutineType(types: !6)
|
|
|
|
!6 = !{null}
|
|
|
|
!7 = !{i32 2, !"Dwarf Version", i32 4}
|
|
|
|
!8 = !{i32 2, !"Debug Info Version", i32 3}
|
|
|
|
!9 = !{i32 1, !"PIC Level", i32 2}
|
|
|
|
!10 = !{!"clang version 3.8.0 (trunk 254906) (llvm/trunk 254917)"}
|
|
|
|
!11 = !DILocalVariable(name: "p", scope: !4, file: !1, line: 2, type: !12)
|
|
|
|
!12 = !DIBasicType(name: "char", size: 8, align: 8, encoding: DW_ATE_signed_char)
|
2016-01-15 08:46:17 +08:00
|
|
|
!13 = !DIExpression(DW_OP_deref)
|
2015-12-09 07:00:03 +08:00
|
|
|
!14 = !DILocation(line: 2, column: 8, scope: !4)
|
|
|
|
!15 = !DILocation(line: 3, column: 1, scope: !4)
|