The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573
llvm-svn: 264966
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
Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the
CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because
intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous
and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is
taken.
Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This
correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue
but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424
llvm-svn: 249483
The 32-bit tables don't actually contain PC range data, so emitting them
is incredibly simple.
The 64-bit tables, on the other hand, use the same table for state
numbering as well as label ranges. This makes things more difficult, so
it will be implemented later.
llvm-svn: 247192
Hans Wennborg