cdavis5x added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D50564#1206302, @kristina wrote:
> I'm all for this change except the core issue is that you're using libunwind > as a shim around the actual unwinding API provided by Windows. It would be > nice to have something that did not have to do that and was capable of > performing unwinding of SEH-style exceptions without needing additional > runtime support. It would be nice, but that would require extra work. We'd have to implement reading and interpreting unwind codes, and calling any handlers present at each frame (which all have a different calling convention from Itanium handlers), and handling chained unwind info... Or we could use the implementation that MS provided to us for free--and which gets loaded into every process anyway by virtue of being in NTDLL, and which is extremely well tested. Given all that, I'm wondering what implementing all that ourselves would gain us. I suppose we could eventually do all that, but for now, I think this is outside the scope of my change. Repository: rUNW libunwind https://reviews.llvm.org/D50564 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
