================
@@ -999,25 +1017,43 @@ bool
WebAssemblyLowerEmscriptenEHSjLj::runOnModule(Module &M) {
// Register __wasm_longjmp function, which calls __builtin_wasm_longjmp.
FunctionType *FTy = FunctionType::get(
IRB.getVoidTy(), {Int8PtrTy, IRB.getInt32Ty()}, false);
- WasmLongjmpF = getEmscriptenFunction(FTy, "__wasm_longjmp", &M);
+ if (EnableWasmAltSjLj) {
+ WasmLongjmpF = getEmscriptenFunction(FTy, "__wasm_sjlj_longjmp", &M);
----------------
aheejin wrote:
Is this the final name? It's unclear what the difference between
`__wasm_longjmp` and `__wasm_sjlj_longjmp` to people who are not familiar with
the history... If the goal is to eventually to replace the current library, I'd
want this to be new `__wasm_longjmp`. But given that we have to maintain both
at this point, how about `__wasm_longjmp_new` or something? (I'm not too
opinionated on this specific name, so please feel free to suggest otherwise..
but what I'm saying is, mainly, in the final version, I'd like to have only
`__wasm_setjmp` and `__wasm_longjmp`, with your version. I think `_sjlj_` is a
redundancy.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/84137
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
