On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
target machine
has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
Looks good. How many targets have neither case/tablejump?
r~
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/12/12 06:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* toplev.c (process_options): Fail for sjlj exceptions if the
target machine
has no casesi insn and no tablejump insn.
Looks good. How many targets have
For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
register-indirect, i.e. BR $label and BR AX.
This is unfortunate because rl78 is a #define DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO 0
On 05/14/12 12:59, DJ Delorie wrote:
For rl78 there is a comment in gcc/config/rl78/rl78.h that suggests
there should be a tablejump insn, but it's not there.
The only unconditional branches rl78 has are immediate and
register-indirect, i.e. BR $label and BR AX.
The later is certainly how
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/18/2012 05:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, if SJLJ lowering happens as gimple pass somewhere near the end of
gimple
queue, this should not be problem at all. (and implementation would be
cleaner)
If you can
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/18/2012 05:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, if SJLJ lowering happens as gimple pass somewhere near the end of
gimple
queue, this should not be problem at all. (and implementation would be
cleaner)
If
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jan Hubicka hubi...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/18/2012 05:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, if SJLJ lowering happens as gimple pass somewhere near the end of
gimple
queue, this should not be
Isn't SJLJ used by default for Ada on all targets?
Nope, Ada uses the same EH scheme as the other compilers, except for a few
cases where it uses its own __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp based scheme.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hello,
If I move GIMPLE_SWITCH lowering from stmt.c to somewhere in the
GIMPLE pass pipeline, I run into an issue with SJLJ exceptions. The
problem is that except.c:sjlj_emit_dispatch_table() builts a
GIMPLE_SWITCH and calls expand_case on it. If I move all non-casesi,
non-tablejump code out of
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
If I move GIMPLE_SWITCH lowering from stmt.c to somewhere in the
GIMPLE pass pipeline, I run into an issue with SJLJ exceptions. The
problem is that except.c:sjlj_emit_dispatch_table() builts a
What is the reason why lowering for SJLJ exceptions is not done in GIMPLE?
Because it completely wrecks loops because we factor the SJLJ site,
thus
fn ()
{
...
for (;;)
{
try { X } catch { Y }
}
becomes
fn ()
{
if (setjmp ())
{
switch (...)
On 04/18/2012 05:39 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Well, if SJLJ lowering happens as gimple pass somewhere near the end of gimple
queue, this should not be problem at all. (and implementation would be
cleaner)
If you can find a clean way of separating sjlj expansion from dw2 expansion,
please do.
12 matches
Mail list logo
