[LLVMdev] Inlining and exception handling in LLVM and GCC

[Devang Patel]

On Dec 8, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:

> Hi Renato,
> 
>> On 8 December 2010 14:07, Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr>  wrote:
>>>  This means that if I start coding my proposal then almost certainly I will
>>> attach the info to basic blocks.  In fact it makes sense to do so even
>>> before we remove the invoke instruction: in the short term we would
>>> still have invoke, but the catch info for the invoke would be attached
>>> to the basic block containing the invoke,
>> 
>> I see, in that case, it makes more sense to attach all the information
>> to the callee block rather than force the artificial association of a
>> dispatch instruction with a particular basic block.

I do not know EH or details of these proposals. But do not forget, basic blocks are merged/split/deleted, instructions are added/removed/moved/copied/replaced. 
-
Devang

>> 
>> If I'm not yet as lost as I think I am, that's your proposal, right?
> 
> yes, that's it: don't store info about catches in eh.selector calls, just attach
> it directly to the basic block in which the exception is raised (which right now
> means the one containing the invoke).  Most of my proposal was a long-winded
> explanation of why this actually solves a bunch of problems, but the content of
> the proposal is one line long, as proved by the previous line :)