Adds a number of constants, defined in the ARM EHABI spec, to the Clang
lib/Headers/unwind.h header. This is prerequisite for landing
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15781, as previously discussed there.
Patch by Timon Van Overveldt.
llvm-svn: 262178
libunwind in all cases when installed.
At the time, Clang's unwind.h didn't provide huge chunks of the
LSB-specified unwind interface, and was generally too aenemic to use for
real software. However, it has since then become a strict superset of
the APIs provided by libunwind on Linux. Notably, you cannot compile
llgo's libgo library against libunwind, but you can against Clang's
unwind.h. So let's just use our header. =] I've checked pretty
thoroughly for any incompatibilities, and I am not aware of any.
An open question is whether or not we should continue to munge
GNU_SOURCE here. I didn't touch that as it potentially has compatibility
implications on systems I cannot easily test -- Darwin. If a Darwin
maintainer can verify that this is in fact unnecessary and remove it,
cool. Until then, leaving it in makes this change a no-op there, and
only really relevant on Linux systems where it is pretty clearly the
right way to go.
llvm-svn: 224934
necessary to be fully compatible with existing software that calls into
the linux unwind code. You can find documentation of this API and why it
exists in the discussion abot NPTL here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-09/msg00154.html
llvm-svn: 224933
These symbols were showing up as undefined when trying to link programs on
Android. We should match libgcc's behaviour and provide inline definitions
of these on ARM.
It seems unwind.h on ARM/Darwin doesn't provide inline definitions, so we
just declare them for that platform.
llvm-svn: 191406
Several of the intrinsic headers were using plain non-reserved identifiers.
C++11 17.6.4.3.2 [global.names] p1 reservers names containing a double
begining with an underscore followed by an uppercase letter for any use.
I think I got them all, but open to being corrected. For the most part I
didn't bother updating function-like macro parameter names because I don't
believe they're subject to any such collission - though some function-like
macros already follow this convention (I didn't update them in part because
the churn was more significant as several function-like macros use the double
underscore prefixed version of the same name as a parameter in their
implementation)
llvm-svn: 172666
Logan Chien