[PATCH] D94049: [WebAssembly] Fix catch unwind mismatches
Thomas Lively via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Fri Jan 15 21:39:13 PST 2021
tlively added inline comments.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssemblyCFGStackify.cpp:905-906
+ // put the 'delegate' BB in between. We normally create a split BB and make
+ // it a successor of the original BB (PostSplit == true), but in case the BB
+ // is an EH pad and the split pos is before 'catch', we should preserve the
+ // BB's property, including that it is an EH pad, in the later part of the
----------------
What is an example of when the split position could be before `catch`?
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssemblyCFGStackify.cpp:1261
bool WebAssemblyCFGStackify::fixCatchUnwindMismatches(MachineFunction &MF) {
- // TODO implement
- return false;
+ // There is another kind of unwind destination mismatches than call unwind
+ // mismatches, which we will call "catch unwindmismatches". See this example
----------------
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssemblyCFGStackify.cpp:1262
+ // There is another kind of unwind destination mismatches than call unwind
+ // mismatches, which we will call "catch unwindmismatches". See this example
+ // after the marker placement:
----------------
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/WebAssembly/WebAssemblyCFGStackify.cpp:1315-1316
+ // anything
+ if (MI.getOpcode() == WebAssembly::CATCH_ALL)
+ ;
+
----------------
~Is this supposed to be a `continue`?~ Oh, I see it's just there in service of the `else if`s below. I found this confusing when I first saw it (especially without braces). I think it would be clearer if structured a different way.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94049/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D94049
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list