SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in
unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in
a funclet which it was not originally part of.
Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not
an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program.
Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the
legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have
trouble with.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517
llvm-svn: 255674
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
Summary:
Now that there is a one-to-one mapping from MachineFunction to
WinEHFuncInfo, we don't need to use a DenseMap to select the right
WinEHFuncInfo for the current funclet.
The main challenge here is that X86WinEHStatePass is an IR pass that
doesn't have access to the MachineFunction. I gave it its own
WinEHFuncInfo object that it uses to calculate state numbers, which it
then throws away. As long as nobody creates or removes EH pads between
this pass and SDAG construction, we will get the same state numbers.
The other thing X86WinEHStatePass does is to mark the EH registration
node. Instead of communicating which alloca was the registration through
WinEHFuncInfo, I added the llvm.x86.seh.ehregnode intrinsic. This
intrinsic generates no code and simply marks the alloca in use.
Reviewers: JCTremoulet
Subscribers: llvm-commits
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14668
llvm-svn: 253378
Also Fix a buglet where SEH tables had ranges that spanned funclets.
The remaining tests using the old landingpad IR are preparation tests,
and will be deleted along with the old preparation.
llvm-svn: 249917
Zia Ansari