[PATCH] libcxxabi/unwind: Add support for ARM EHABI in AddressSpace.hpp
thakis at chromium.org
Thu Jun 5 08:39:38 PDT 2014
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
> I’ve been at WWDC this week, so I’ll be slow on responding...
> Do you have what the final code will look like after all the incremental
> patches you plan?
. To see the relevant diffs, click on "Files changed" tab and search for
which gave an outline of our upstreaming plan.
> I’d like to understand how much overlap there is between the Itanium
> unwinder and the EHABI unwinder. If there is not much, then trying to jam
> the two together with lots of conditionals will just make for hard to read
> code. And it is not like the algorithm can be improved in the future (so
> keeping them together would allow both unwinders to improve at once),
> because the algorithm just follows what the steps of the spec (Itanium and
> On Jun 4, 2014, at 2:34 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote:
> Is this new patch fine for now? (Everything else depends on it.)
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Dana Jansens <danakj at google.com> wrote:
>> Here's an updated patch that uses LIBCXX_API_EHABI. Since this is in
>> AddressSpace.hpp which is part of the "libunwind" layer, I've duplicated
>> the #define for this from the unwind.h which is part of the "_Unwind" layer
>> to avoid including the unwind.h header which doesn't belong in
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Dana Jansens <danakj at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Dana Jansens <danakj at google.com> wrote:
>>>>> The setjump-longjump is similar to this. It does not use the lower
>>>>> level libunwind APIs and it has its own phase1/phase2 unwinding code
>>>>> separate from the Itanium style. So, it makes sense to me for the ARM
>>>>> EHABI implementation to be in its own Unwind-ehabi.c file and do not use
>>>>> libunwind under it. This was part of why I thought of EHABI as being a
>>>>> different unwinder than the zero-cost unwinder in terms of
>>>> We discussed making a change like that, but we're more concerned with
>>>> upstreaming first right now, rather than keeping this all on a private
>>>> repo. Since the way we developed this was sharing code with the itanium
>>>> implementation as much as possible, are you okay with upstreaming it in
>>>> this fashion and then looking at moving it away in the future?
>>>> Can you be more specific about what you mean by “in this fashion” and
>>>> “moving it away in the future”.
>>> Sure! What we have in our repo is an implementation of ARM EHABI on
>>> top of the Itanium APIs. Initially we felt that made a lot of sense, though
>>> more recently we've started thinking about doing something different to fit
>>> the ARM EHABI requirements better. So, currently we are sharing code in
>>> unwind_level1, and AddressSpace and so on, as much as possible. This also
>>> helps keep our diffs smaller, I think.
>>> In the future (maybe 6 months out) we could consider moving the
>>> implementation away from sharing code with itanium with #ifdefs, and moving
>>> to something more separate like SJLJ. But this isn't something we can
>>> realistically commit to doing right now, so it would make upstreaming a lot
>>> more difficult.
>>> What we have is a functioning implementation that passes the tests, so I
>>> think it's not unreasonable. Concretely, this means using #if
>>> LIBCXX_ARM_EHABI throughout each of the three cxxabi, Unwind, and libunwind
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cfe-commits