Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 02:46:26 -0800 From: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@vlakno.cz> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: clang 3.8.0 can mess up __builtin_dwarf_cfa (), at least for TARGET_ARCH=armv6, powerpc, powerpc64: a bug 207325 update Message-ID: <22AD8E4F-B3F2-455E-8EBE-2C70E428D44A@dsl-only.net> In-Reply-To: <20160228083934.GA60222@vlakno.cz> References: <83B8741C-B4C9-4EFB-A3B4-473F8F165984@dsl-only.net> <80EA4460-E842-46F5-B006-2A83FBBEE845@dsl-only.net> <F23112FF-C417-4757-96FF-4E93C259DC9D@dsl-only.net> <366B67F9-6A14-4906-8545-1B57A3FF53B8@dsl-only.net> <20160228083934.GA60222@vlakno.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-Feb-28, at 12:39 AM, Roman Divacky <rdivacky at vlakno.cz> = wrote: >=20 > Mark, >=20 > __builtin_dwarf_cfa() is lowered in clang to llvm intrinsic = eh_dwarf_cfa. > There's a depth argument (which defaults to 0, saying it's correct for = most > targets).=20 >=20 > Then the intrinsic gets lowered in SelectionDAG using > PPCTargetLowering::LowerFRAMEADDR() >=20 >=20 > Can you check that 1) the depth should be 0 for ppc64/ppc32 2) that > LowerFRAMEADDR() does something sensible? >=20 > There's a loop depth-times, so I wonder if that makes a difference. >=20 > Thanks, Roman "Lowered"? I'm not familiar with the clang code base or its terminology. = Handed off to a lower level interface, may be? As near as I can tell libgcc_s could be made to deal with clang 3.8.0's = way of __builtin_dwarf_cfa() working for powerpc/powerpc64. But then use = with g++ would be broken on powerpc/powerpc64 unless there were some = sort of live "which compiler's type of code" test also involved. Having only one libgcc_s and multiple compilers using it for a given = TARGET_ARCH=3D (for example, devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc like uses) = suggests sticking to one convention per TARGET_ARCH=3D for = __builtin_dwarf_cfa(). I would guess that g++ conventions win in this type of context for = FreeBSD, under the guideline of trying to be gcc 4.2.1 "ABI" compatible. = libgcc_s from FreeBSD works for C++ exceptions with its gcc 4.2.1 for = powerpc and powerpc64 as things are as far as I know. But for clang++ FreeBSD is one context among many and other libraries = may be based on clang 3.8.0's existing interpretation, without gcc/g++ = compatibility constraints. (I've no experience with earlier clang = vintages for the issue.) It may be that any change needs to be FreeBSD = target-triple specific for all I know. In essence: making the convention = part of the ABI chosen. I'll probably get some sleep before looking much at the code that you = reference. A quick look at part of it suggests a fair amount of = research/study for me to interpret things reliably. The loop may be somewhat analogous to _Unwind_RaiseException's loop, but = for a specific depth. I would currently guess that depth 1 would match = gcc 4.2.1's result for __builtin_dwarf_cfa(). But there was also some other "address"(?) builtin support routine = nearby that seemed to call into LowerFRAMEADDR() and I've no clue if g++ = 4.2.1 uses the same depth-figure standard for both sorts of things or = not. For all I know both types of builtins(?) might have mismatches with = gcc/g++ 4.2.1 and both might need fixes. I do vaguely remember seeing a builtin in FreeBSD code for something = that had an explicit number in the argument list, possibly = __builtin_frame_address(n)(?). But I only saw __builtin_dwarf_cfa() with = no argument in the argument list as far as I remember. If clang 3.8.0 and gcc 4.2.1 disagreed about what the numbering standard = referred to for __builtin_frame_address(n) (or whatever it was), that = would not be good and compatibility would imply conversions between the = conventions for the 2 FreeBSD contexts. I have not checked for armv6 related clang++ vs. g++ compatibility for = C++ exception-handling. If anything is not operating for that context I = expect that it would be g++ that generated buildworld code that did not = work based on the FreeBSD source code: clang/clang++ is the normal = compiler and kyua seemed to operate, unlike on the powerpc/powerpc64. I've never tried to build armv6 via an equivalent of = devel/powerpc64-gcc. I do not know if armv6 even uses the same sort of = C++ exception-handling ABI or not. But I do know that = __builtin_dwarf_cfa() is not compatible between clang++ and g++ from the = 2-line source and comparing objdump -d results. So more than powerpc/powerpc64 might be involved overall. =3D=3D=3D Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22AD8E4F-B3F2-455E-8EBE-2C70E428D44A>