When functions are terminated by unreachable instructions, the last
instruction might trigger a CFI instruction to be generated. However,
emitting it would be be illegal since the function (and thus the FDE
the CFI is in) has already ended with the previous instruction.
Darwin's dwarfdump --verify --eh-frame complains about this and the
specification supports this.
Relevant bits from the DWARF 5 standard (6.4 Call Frame Information):
"[The] address_range [field in an FDE]: The number of bytes of
program instructions described by this entry."
"Row creation instructions: [...]
The new location value is always greater than the current one."
The first quotation implies that a CFI cannot describe a target
address outside of the enclosing FDE's range.
rdar://problem/26244988
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D32246
llvm-svn: 301219
On MachO, and MachO only, we cannot have a truly empty function since that
breaks the linker logic for atomizing the section.
When we are emitting a frame pointer, the presence of an unreachable will
create a cfi instruction pointing past the last instruction. This is perfectly
fine. The FDE information encodes the pc range it applies to. If some tool
cannot handle this, we should explicitly say which bug we are working around
and only work around it when it is actually relevant (not for ELF for example).
Given the unreachable we could omit the .cfi_def_cfa_register, but then
again, we could also omit the entire function prologue if we wanted to.
llvm-svn: 217801
void foo() { __builtin_unreachable(); }
It will output the following on Darwin X86:
_func1:
Leh_func_begin0:
pushq %rbp
Ltmp0:
movq %rsp, %rbp
Ltmp1:
Leh_func_end0:
This prolog adds a new Call Frame Information (CFI) row to the FDE with an
address that is not within the address range of the code it describes -- part is
equal to the end of the function -- and therefore results in an invalid EH
frame. If we emit a nop in this situation, then the CFI row is now within the
address range.
llvm-svn: 108568
Adrian Prantl