[LLVMdev] question on difference of bitcode between C and C++

[Anna Zaks]

Another difference is the presence of exceptions in C++, which would require you to handle more IR instructions. This might not matter depending on type of analysis you do.
See: http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_invoke
(Note that there is a substantial rewrite of exception handling going into 3.0)

Anna.
On Sep 22, 2011, at 3:29 AM, Renato Golin wrote:

> On 22 September 2011 03:30, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am trying to find such difference of bitcode between C and C++.
>> 
>> There isn't any difference in that sense... in IR, a constructor is
>> just a function call, a reference is just a pointer, etc.
> 
> Hi Fei,
> 
> While Clang (like others) lowers C++ into C semantics and lower that
> into IR, there are some changes that exist in C++ and not in C. The IR
> has the same features, but some assumptions on the semantics are
> different.
> 
> I can give you two examples:
> 
> 1. Classes in C++ are like C structures in IR, but the C++ ABI makes
> it difficult to express Base/Derived classes in pure structures.
> (http://www.systemcall.org/blog/2011/01/cpp-class-sizes/ and
> http://www.systemcall.org/blog/2011/03/cpp-class-sizes-2/).
> 
> So, if your pass depends on identifying the same types, you could end
> up thinking that the types are different, but they're not. They're
> just different struct representations (base vs. derived) of the same
> type.
> 
> 2. Virtual table tables encode offsets in two different ways:
> addresses and offsets, and the two representations are normally on the
> same global static array in IR. So, while the type of the array is int
> (or pointer), it contains addresses and offsets from addresses
> bitcasting to the type of the global.
> 
> These are not the only C-lowering that C++ front-ends do, but it gives
> you a taste of what to expect. As Eli said, most of C++ can be lowered
> into C-like structures and the IR is very similar, but some semantic
> interpretations are done differently, and the internal IR (that deals
> with those objects) is slightly different.
> 
> 
> -- 
> cheers,
> --renato
> 
> http://systemcall.org/
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110922/9610829d/attachment.html>