[llvm-dev] [RFC] Asynchronous unwind tables attribute

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

Ultimately I think I'd like to know why you think you should do this, hence
the request for use cases :)

Thanks!

-eric

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 6:57 AM Momchil Velikov <momchil.velikov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 18:18, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Momchil,
> >
> > So, I think to elaborate from the thread you're looking at separating
> out:
> >
> > no tables,
> > exception handling,
> > instruction level unwind accuracy
> >
> > for unwind tables? Some examples of cases you expect to work and
> explicitly not work in each of these would be fairly motivating. Going down
> the use cases for each.
>
> Not really. What I'm looking for is to convey the value of the CodeGen
> option `UnwindTables` from clang to LLVM.
>
>          | nounwind 0  |  nounwind 1
> ----------+-------------+--------------
> uwtable 0 | <full,no>   |  <no,no>
> ----------+-------------+--------------
> uwtable 1 | <full,no>   |  <full,no>
> ----------+-------------+--------------
> uwtable 2 | <full,full> |  <full,full>
>
>
> Lacking that, a backend can choose to generate unwind tables either  according
> to the
> second or the third rows, but a user has no control of it. As different
> kinds of unwind
> tables have different functionality and trade-offs, that should be
> something under user control.
>
> ~chill
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20211210/44741e69/attachment.html>