MaskRay added a comment.
In D91760#2406747 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91760#2406747>, @joerg wrote:
> The difference is whether we promise to be instruction precise or not. I'm
> not sure we do or want to promise that as default.
`gcc/common/config/{aarch64,rs6000}/*-common.c` enables
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables so I think the title is right about the eventual
state.
I think the current state for x86-64 is that the produced .cfi instructions
satisfy the asynchronous requirement.
Other targets (e.g. aarch64) mostly satisfy the requirement, but their
epilogues may miss some instructions due to missing hooks required by
CFIInstrInserter. This is just a QoI issue (and if I'll probably work on this
on my spare time).
(GCC has its problems, too. It does not analyze inline asm and cannot produce
100% asynchronous unwind tables)
I think it is right that in this patch we say we that we default to
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91760/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91760
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
