From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12371 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2009 17:24:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 12363 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2009 17:24:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:24:33 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD1286391; Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:24:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:24:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: Richard Henderson Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Diego Novillo Subject: Re: [PATCH] Merge from LTO: eh_personality changes In-Reply-To: <4AA293E4.8090301@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <4AA293E4.8090301@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00410.txt.bz2 On Sat, 5 Sep 2009, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 09/04/2009 06:34 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > + sorry ("Multiple EH personalities are supported only with assemblers " > > + "supporting .cfi.personality directive."); > > There's no reason this can't be fixed. You simply need to rearrange > the .eh_frame generation to emit multiple CFI's. Ok. The sorry () merely affects LTO for now (there's no other way you can have different personalities in a TU), so I guess a FIXME is enough here? I understand that without this patch LTOing C and C++ together wouldn't work, but maybe Diego can clarify. > Also, I think you need to add something to prevent inlining of functions > that use different personality functions. I don't think so. The IL should be still in a state where the inlined pieces would simply inherit the callers personality. But maybe I'm missing something? > Do you have a strategy for handling > > if (targetm.arm_eabi_unwinder) > unwind_resume_libfunc = init_one_libfunc ("__cxa_end_cleanup"); > > since this function is only used for c++/java? No. Do you have something in mind? I see the patch is somewhat incomplete (there's also lang_eh_runtime_type, but maybe we never call add_type_for_runtime after a frontend finishes - in which case this should have been a langhook?) - and in general the integration of EH aware and non-EH aware code with LTO still needs work and thought. At least it seems to work - and as I'm not too deep into EH related code I don't have plans to extend it much. Thanks, Richard.