[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Unwind behaviour in Clang/LLVM

Renato Golin renato.golin at linaro.org
Thu Feb 6 06:30:11 PST 2014

On 6 February 2014 13:59, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de>wrote:

> This is not true. Even for nounwind, you want to get basic tables so
> that backtrace(3) works.

Hi Joerg,

It's a matter of consensus, I believe. Is it the general consensus that we
will *always* want unwind tables to exist? Code size is a clear reason to
not want unwind tables at all, but there might not be many more. If the
general consensus is that unwind tables are a must, and should only be
turned off in special cases, then we just keep emitting them and create (or
reuse) a flag to stop it. If not, language / flags decision (-fexception,
-g, profiling, etc) should turn them on. However, if every one agrees that,
no matter what, we *will* emit unwind tables, than the whole argument is
moot, and there is absolutely nothing to "fix" besides removing

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140206/1ec09c29/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list