and integer pair corresponding to the pointer to the *exception structure* and
the *selector value* respectively.
-The ``landingpad`` instruction takes a reference to the personality function to
-be used for this ``try``/``catch`` sequence. The remainder of the instruction is
-a list of *cleanup*, *catch*, and *filter* clauses. The exception is tested
-against the clauses sequentially from first to last. The clauses have the
-following meanings:
+The ``landingpad`` instruction looks for a reference to the personality
+function to be used for this ``try``/``catch`` sequence in the parent
+function's attribute list. The instruction contains a list of *cleanup*,
+*catch*, and *filter* clauses. The exception is tested against the clauses
+sequentially from first to last. The clauses have the following meanings:
- ``catch <type> @ExcType``
outlined. After the handler is outlined, this intrinsic is simply removed.
+.. _llvm.eh.exceptionpointer:
+
+``llvm.eh.exceptionpointer``
+----------------------------
+
+.. code-block:: llvm
+
+ i8 addrspace(N)* @llvm.eh.padparam.pNi8(token %catchpad)
+
+
+This intrinsic retrieves a pointer to the exception caught by the given
+``catchpad``.
+
+
SJLJ Intrinsics
---------------
Exception Handling using the Windows Runtime
=================================================
-(Note: Windows C++ exception handling support is a work in progress and is not
-yet fully implemented. The text below describes how it will work when
-completed.)
-
Background on Windows exceptions
---------------------------------
-Interacting with exceptions on Windows is significantly more complicated than on
-Itanium C++ ABI platforms. The fundamental difference between the two models is
-that Itanium EH is designed around the idea of "successive unwinding," while
+Interacting with exceptions on Windows is significantly more complicated than
+on Itanium C++ ABI platforms. The fundamental difference between the two models
+is that Itanium EH is designed around the idea of "successive unwinding," while
Windows EH is not.
Under Itanium, throwing an exception typically involes allocating thread local
The following new instructions are considered "exception handling pads", in that
they must be the first non-phi instruction of a basic block that may be the
-unwind destination of an invoke: ``catchpad``, ``cleanuppad``, and
-``terminatepad``. As with landingpads, when entering a try scope, if the
+unwind destination of an EH flow edge:
+``catchswitch``, ``catchpad``, ``cleanuppad``, and ``terminatepad``.
+As with landingpads, when entering a try scope, if the
frontend encounters a call site that may throw an exception, it should emit an
-invoke that unwinds to a ``catchpad`` block. Similarly, inside the scope of a
+invoke that unwinds to a ``catchswitch`` block. Similarly, inside the scope of a
C++ object with a destructor, invokes should unwind to a ``cleanuppad``. The
``terminatepad`` instruction exists to represent ``noexcept`` and throw
specifications with one combined instruction. All potentially throwing calls in
a ``noexcept`` function should transitively unwind to a terminateblock. Throw
specifications are not implemented by MSVC, and are not yet supported.
-Each of these new EH pad instructions has a way to identify which
-action should be considered after this action. The ``catchpad`` and
-``terminatepad`` instructions are terminators, and have a label operand considered
-to be an unwind destination analogous to the unwind destination of an invoke. The
-``cleanuppad`` instruction is different from the other two in that it is not a
-terminator. The code inside a cleanuppad runs before transferring control to the
-next action, so the ``cleanupret`` instruction is the instruction that holds a
-label operand and unwinds to the next EH pad. All of these "unwind edges" may
-refer to a basic block that contains an EH pad instruction, or they may simply
-unwind to the caller. Unwinding to the caller has roughly the same semantics as
-the ``resume`` instruction in the ``landingpad`` model. When inlining through an
-invoke, instructions that unwind to the caller are hooked up to unwind to the
-unwind destination of the call site.
+New instructions are also used to mark the points where control is transferred
+out of a catch/cleanup handler (which will correspond to exits from the
+generated funclet). A catch handler which reaches its end by normal execution
+executes a ``catchret`` instruction, which is a terminator indicating where in
+the function control is returned to. A cleanup handler which reaches its end
+by normal execution executes a ``cleanupret`` instruction, which is a terminator
+indicating where the active exception will unwind to next.
+
+Each of these new EH pad instructions has a way to identify which action should
+be considered after this action. The ``catchswitch`` and ``terminatepad``
+instructions are terminators, and have a unwind destination operand analogous
+to the unwind destination of an invoke. The ``cleanuppad`` instruction is not
+a terminator, so the unwind destination is stored on the ``cleanupret``
+instruction instead. Successfully executing a catch handler should resume
+normal control flow, so neither ``catchpad`` nor ``catchret`` instructions can
+unwind. All of these "unwind edges" may refer to a basic block that contains an
+EH pad instruction, or they may unwind to the caller. Unwinding to the caller
+has roughly the same semantics as the ``resume`` instruction in the landingpad
+model. When inlining through an invoke, instructions that unwind to the caller
+are hooked up to unwind to the unwind destination of the call site.
Putting things together, here is a hypothetical lowering of some C++ that uses
all of the new IR instructions:
Cleanup obj;
may_throw();
} catch (int e) {
+ may_throw();
return e;
}
return 0;
call void @"\01??_DCleanup@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.Cleanup* nonnull %obj) nounwind
br label %return
- return: ; preds = %invoke.cont.2, %catch
- %retval.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %invoke.cont.2 ], [ %9, %catch ]
+ return: ; preds = %invoke.cont.3, %invoke.cont.2
+ %retval.0 = phi i32 [ 0, %invoke.cont.2 ], [ %3, %invoke.cont.3 ]
ret i32 %retval.0
- ; EH scope code, ordered innermost to outermost:
+ lpad.cleanup: ; preds = %invoke.cont.2
+ %0 = cleanuppad within none []
+ call void @"\01??1Cleanup@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.Cleanup* nonnull %obj) nounwind
+ cleanupret %0 unwind label %lpad.catch
- lpad.cleanup: ; preds = %invoke.cont
- %cleanup = cleanuppad []
- call void @"\01??_DCleanup@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.Cleanup* nonnull %obj) nounwind
- cleanupret %cleanup unwind label %lpad.catch
+ lpad.catch: ; preds = %lpad.cleanup, %entry
+ %1 = catchswitch within none [label %catch.body] unwind label %lpad.terminate
- lpad.catch: ; preds = %entry, %lpad.cleanup
- %catch = catchpad [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i32* %e]
- to label %catch unwind label %lpad.terminate
+ catch.body: ; preds = %lpad.catch
+ %catch = catchpad within %1 [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i32* %e]
+ invoke void @"\01?may_throw@@YAXXZ"()
+ to label %invoke.cont.3 unwind label %lpad.terminate
- catch: ; preds = %lpad.catch
- %9 = load i32, i32* %e, align 4
- catchret %catch label %return
+ invoke.cont.3: ; preds = %catch.body
+ %3 = load i32, i32* %e, align 4
+ catchret from %catch to label %return
- lpad.terminate:
- terminatepad [void ()* @"\01?terminate@@YAXXZ"]
- unwind to caller
+ lpad.terminate: ; preds = %catch.body, %lpad.catch
+ terminatepad within none [void ()* @"\01?terminate@@YAXXZ"] unwind to caller
}
+
+Funclet parent tokens
+-----------------------
+
+In order to produce tables for EH personalities that use funclets, it is
+necessary to recover the nesting that was present in the source. This funclet
+parent relationship is encoded in the IR using tokens produced by the new "pad"
+instructions. The token operand of a "pad" or "ret" instruction indicates which
+funclet it is in, or "none" if it is not nested within another funclet.
+
+The ``catchpad`` and ``cleanuppad`` instructions establish new funclets, and
+their tokens are consumed by other "pad" instructions to establish membership.
+The ``catchswitch`` instruction does not create a funclet, but it produces a
+token that is always consumed by its immediate successor ``catchpad``
+instructions. This ensures that every catch handler modelled by a ``catchpad``
+belongs to exactly one ``catchswitch``, which models the dispatch point after a
+C++ try. The ``terminatepad`` instruction cannot contain lexically nested
+funclets inside the termination action, so it does not produce a token.
+
+Here is an example of what this nesting looks like using some hypothetical
+C++ code:
+
+.. code-block:: c
+
+ void f() {
+ try {
+ throw;
+ } catch (...) {
+ try {
+ throw;
+ } catch (...) {
+ }
+ }
+ }
+
+.. code-block:: llvm
+ define void @f() #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
+ entry:
+ invoke void @_CxxThrowException(i8* null, %eh.ThrowInfo* null) #1
+ to label %unreachable unwind label %catch.dispatch
+
+ catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
+ %0 = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind to caller
+
+ catch: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
+ %1 = catchpad within %0 [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
+ invoke void @_CxxThrowException(i8* null, %eh.ThrowInfo* null) #1
+ to label %unreachable unwind label %catch.dispatch2
+
+ catch.dispatch2: ; preds = %catch
+ %2 = catchswitch within %1 [label %catch3] unwind to caller
+
+ catch3: ; preds = %catch.dispatch2
+ %3 = catchpad within %2 [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
+ catchret from %3 to label %try.cont
+
+ try.cont: ; preds = %catch3
+ catchret from %1 to label %try.cont6
+
+ try.cont6: ; preds = %try.cont
+ ret void
+
+ unreachable: ; preds = %catch, %entry
+ unreachable
+ }
+
+The "inner" ``catchswitch`` consumes ``%1`` which is produced by the outer
+catchswitch.
projects / oota-llvm.git / blobdiff