GkvJwa wrote: > > This case(new and delete object) I think we should probably fix the EH > > numbering algorithm, This does not conflict with This PR > > I argued throughout this PR that "fixing this in EH numbering" is not optimal > since mixing SEH with C++ unwinding is generally not allowed in MS C++ and > only seems to be supported by Borland C++. In the latter case I do not know > how unwinding is generated (e.g. which personality is chosen). > > What i noticed though: even if we mark the dtor as virtual for the delete > sample there is still a scope begin+end. That is also true if we delete the > delete call and just have the ctor present. Since this is legal in MS C++ I > guess one can argue that we should indeed respect c++ scope begin/end > intrinsics in the `calculateSEHStateForAsynchEH` numbering algo.
Yes, because using MSVC is effective. impl can be discussed further. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/172287 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
