Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support exception handling on windows #6419

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 6, 2018

Conversation

RX14
Copy link
Contributor

@RX14 RX14 commented Jul 20, 2018

This was a tough one, but I learned a lot along the way and I'm glad I accomplished it.

@RX14 RX14 added kind:feature topic:compiler platform:windows Windows support based on the MSVC toolchain labels Jul 20, 2018
@RX14 RX14 requested a review from bcardiff July 20, 2018 19:46
@asterite
Copy link
Member

Wat? You are glad you accomplished it?? You are ****ing amazing, Chris!

@bararchy
Copy link
Contributor

My hero!
Great work 🎉

@ukd1
Copy link

ukd1 commented Jul 20, 2018

@RX14 💯 💯 💯 💯 💯 💯 💯

@RX14
Copy link
Contributor Author

RX14 commented Jul 20, 2018

A lot of this work was @bcardiff and @txe, I stand on the shoulders of giants.

@straight-shoota
Copy link
Member

I used a compiler with this patch to compile my local branch with Windows library bindings. It didn't break anything, but the specs don't contain any expectations about exceptions, because that didn't work until now. But I'll work on that.

I also compiled crinja's spec suite. It's one of the largest Crystal projects I know and there are quite a number of exception raised and rescued. And it worked fine 👍 Not all specs passed (which was to be expected), but none fails because of an error in exception handling.

@RX14
Copy link
Contributor Author

RX14 commented Jul 22, 2018

@straight-shoota thats fantastic. I wouldn't be surprised if there's still quite a few edge cases in here though. The key hint is usually an "invalid instruction" segfault (llvm adds a ud2 instruction at the end of catch blocks where it thinks it should be unreachable) or a module validation failure.

@hanyuone hanyuone mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2018
22 tasks
@RX14 RX14 mentioned this pull request Jul 24, 2018
Copy link
Member

@bcardiff bcardiff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great @RX14. I am still OOF one more week, but it was too much temptation to go through this PR 😅 .

There are some questions, doubts and ideas on how to avoid loosing track of the decisions and knowledge needed to understand this change.

@@ -76,7 +76,35 @@ module Crystal
builder.inbounds_gep ptr, index0, index1, name
end

delegate ptr2int, int2ptr, and, or, not, call, bit_cast,
def call(func, name : String = "")
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason why the handling of the funclet operand bundle can't be done in codegen_call_or_invoke? That would leave the plain delegation in place and avoid duplication.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@RX14 RX14 Jul 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because there's too many places where codegen generates a call outside of codegen_call_or_invoke. I originally had it in codegen_call_or_invoke but I didnt feel like duplicating funclet code in the 50 other places that generate calls (think codegen for constants, there's way more though)

@@ -613,6 +623,12 @@ module Crystal

if return_phi = context.return_phi
return_phi.add @last, node_type
elsif catch_pad = @catch_pad
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So, returns inside a catch_pad section needs to be handled different. I fail to see that the current specs handle return with values. I neither find specs added on this topic, so maybe is something to add in the suite. WDYT?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@RX14 RX14 Jul 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, I didn't really look at the spec suite since it's impossible to run the compiler spec suite on windows yet because the compiler depends on a bunch of stuff thats not ported.

@@ -41,8 +41,14 @@ module Crystal
value
end

def printf(format, args = [] of LLVM::Value)
call @printf, [global_string_pointer(format)] + args
def printf(format, args = [] of LLVM::Value, catch_pad = nil)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

call to printf do really need to be handled with the funclet? Up to know the call was never replaced by an invoke, so it was assumed to never raise AFAIK.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

every call inside a catch pad needs a funclet. This is not about call/invoke and @rescue_block, it's about @catch_pad which is a totally different concern and semantic. This is about telling LLVM which method calls are inside the "catch block", and it applies to every single method call. @rescue_block is about codegenning invoke instructions, and it only matters for calls that raise.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. I also missed this was inside the builder, outside the codegen where the handling of the operand bundle is already handled.

@@ -195,6 +203,153 @@ class Crystal::CodeGenVisitor
false
end

private def codegen_windows_seh(node : ExceptionHandler)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. I think there should be some comments here explaining how the exception data is handled. I know it comes from documentation of llvm seh and trial an error. But there are some decisions w.r.t. how exception is encoded as void* that would help future readers. Also some basic examples of the result in llvm-ir would be great for documentation IMO (l tried to do that at for overflow here in the past).

  2. And I am tempted to suggest some comment or extraction of common parts with the codegen_landing_pad. The handling of multiple ensures is shared. Maybe a strategy struct can be used to encapsulate custom logic for pads vs seh, leaving the existing comments visit(node : ExceptionHandler)/codegen_landing_pad that goes into the details of the handling of the AST. The only real value of this would be to help the reader to understand separate the concepts that are together in this code.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'll definitely look at how to possibly abstract this, if not I'll definitely add some comments.

exception.inspect_with_backtrace(STDERR)
LibC.exit(1)
end
{% if flag?(:debug_raise) %}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would add a TODO note to remote the whole puts here, or just leave it commented for a while.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see why we can't leave the flag in indefinitely.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If it's going to stay, then it needs to be supported in the other platforms.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh yeah, my bad.

@@ -912,4 +914,84 @@ class Crystal::CodeGenVisitor

node.value
end

def void_ptr_type_descriptor
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm glad code snippets end up been useful :-). Thanks for tidying them up a bit.

@hanyuone
Copy link

hanyuone commented Aug 1, 2018

Should this also be on 0.26.0 @bcardiff?

@RX14 RX14 force-pushed the feature/windows-exceptions branch from 0bab1bc to 0e0e28a Compare August 1, 2018 15:51
@RX14
Copy link
Contributor Author

RX14 commented Aug 1, 2018

Pushed an update which merges the windows and linux exception handling code and improves the comments.

@hanyuone hanyuone mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2018
rescue_block = new_block "rescue"

node_rescues = node.rescues
node_ensure = node.ensure
node_else = node.else
rescue_ensure_block = nil

# Here we transform this:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would say that this whole comment section should stay. Your additions inlines are great, but keeping this sections with numbers and later references would be ideal. They facilitate understanding the later code a lot.

Other than that LGTM.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like that block comment because it's very incomplete information, and once you distill it into it's core it's just what I've written below.

Once I start thinking how to improve the comment, I just end up with repeating what i've written below

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The once you distill time is decreased a lot with a nice introduction like the one that is removed. I think that the intricate nature of the code transformation deserves that kind of introduction. Just restoring those line are enough.

@bcardiff bcardiff added this to the 0.26.0 milestone Aug 4, 2018
@RX14
Copy link
Contributor Author

RX14 commented Aug 6, 2018

Added a comment @bcardiff

#
# ```
# ```cr
Copy link
Contributor

@Sija Sija Aug 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

cr here is invalid (that's gfm), it better be empty (like it was before)
ditto all below

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't hurt, though.

Copy link
Contributor

@Sija Sija Aug 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't help either (especially since it was good before that change).

Copy link
Contributor Author

@RX14 RX14 Aug 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

who cares

Copy link
Contributor

@Sija Sija Aug 6, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

who cares, the comment isn't for anyone but humans

Yeah, and humans know what cr stands for...

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @Sija. It's better without the cr. But we can clean up that later (together with one more ```crystal that is somewhere in the code...)

@bcardiff bcardiff merged commit 9a98613 into crystal-lang:master Aug 6, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind:feature platform:windows Windows support based on the MSVC toolchain topic:compiler
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants