https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #33 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: sandra
Date: Tue Dec 4 04:22:37 2018
New Revision: 266770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266770=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-12-03 Sandra Loosemore
PR c/59039
gcc/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #32 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
New patch posted for review here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-12/msg4.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #31 from Christian Häggström ---
What you describe Sandra is mentioned in the man page for longjmp(3). Maybe we
can steal some of its documentation.
Caveats
If the function which called setjmp() returns before
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||helloqirun at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #27
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #28 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Balaji fixed the ICE a while back. Based on c#26, I don't think we should
> hide the functions from being used/called from user code. So the only issue
> left is the doc fix, right?
That's my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #26 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I would not say that __builtin_setjmp is more efficient. It really saves
just as many registers, except that it has help from the containing
function's prologue/epilogue to do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #24 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Does it look OK?
Mostly, but I wouldn't go into full details about what contains the buffer,
this is machine-specific and not portable. Maybe something like:
The @code{setjmp}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #16 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #15)
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
This is good to hear. What is each field? I assume that
the first 3 fields are frame
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #17 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16)
I couldn't find anything in GCC manual.
See tm.texi / md.texi.
This is the only thing I found:
-- Macro: DONT_USE_BUILTIN_SETJMP
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #18 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I couldn't find anything in GCC manual.
There are a few documented hooks, but this looks quite light indeed, so the
sources are probably the best references, i.e. builtins.c and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #18)
I couldn't find anything in GCC manual.
There are a few documented hooks, but this looks quite light indeed, so the
sources are probably
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #20 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Would it be OK to submit it a patch to document
__builtin_longjmp/__builtin_setjmp based on their
sources?
I think that we would need to issue an error if both are in the same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #21 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
It's only an error if they use the same jmpbuf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #22 from bviyer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: bviyer
Date: Fri Nov 8 19:52:27 2013
New Revision: 204592
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204592root=gccview=rev
Log:
+2013-11-08 Balaji V. Iyer balaji.v.i...@intel.com
+
+
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
Created attachment 31186
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31186action=edit
A patch to document __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp
Does it look OK?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
But it seems cilk depends on implementation details of setjmp/longjmp which
looks bogus anyway.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
Ah, those are the builtins used for SJLJ and they get lowered to
setjmp_setup,dispatcher and longjmp.
Don't use __builtin_setjmp as I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Ah, those are the builtins used for SJLJ and they get lowered to
setjmp_setup,dispatcher and longjmp.
Right, they are the efficient version of setjmp/longjmp.
I suppose these
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
Ah, those are the builtins used for SJLJ and they get lowered to
setjmp_setup,dispatcher and longjmp.
Right, they are the efficient
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
What restrictions do they have? Can they be used within the
same function? Can they be used within functions with parameters?
The only restriction I know of is that they cannot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9)
What restrictions do they have? Can they be used within the
same function? Can they be used within functions with parameters?
The only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org ---
In the latter testcase foo doesn't call a function so there is never a need to
save anything.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
%rdi holds the function parameter 'i'. But when __builtin_longjmp is
called, %rdi can have some random value. GCC doesn't save %rdi first.
No, __builtin_longjmp doesn't touch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12)
No, __builtin_longjmp doesn't touch %rdi at all. Don't worry too much, the
SJLJ mechanism of the C++ and Ada compilers has been piggybacked
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This is good to hear. What is each field? I assume that
the first 3 fields are frame address, resume address and
stack address. Are the same for all targets? What are
the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59039
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14)
This is good to hear. What is each field? I assume that
the first 3 fields are frame address, resume address and
stack address. Are
31 matches
Mail list logo
