This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [doc, rfc] document __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp


Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com> writes:
> I have written a new patch for PR 59039 to address more of the comments 
> there, as well as my own complaints about the draft patch attached to 
> the issue.  I'd like to get some feedback on this one before I commit it.

It's a long time since I've worked with these builtins and I'd need
to look at the code to remember how they work.  Reading this without
doing that...

> +@node Nonlocal Gotos
> +@section Nonlocal Gotos
> +@cindex nonlocal gotos

This could be confusing, since GCC supports a "true" form of non-local
goto from nested functions to containing functions, using the "goto"
keyword.

> +GCC provides the built-in functions @code{__builtin_setjmp} and
> +@code{__builtin_longjmp} which are similar to, but not interchangeable
> +with, the C library functions @code{setjmp} and @code{longjmp}.  
> +The built-in versions are used internally by GCC's libraries
> +to implement exception handling on some targets.  You should use the 
> +standard C library functions declared in @code{<setjmp.h>} in user code
> +instead of the builtins.
> +
> +@code{__builtin_setjmp} and @code{__builtin_longjmp} use GCC's normal
> +mechanisms to save and restore registers using the stack on function
> +entry and exit.  The jump buffer argument @var{buf} holds only the
> +information needed to restore the stack frame, rather than the entire 
> +set of saved register values.  

I wasn't sure from this whether __builtin_longjmp did actually restore
the values of registers or not.  Saying that the jump buffer only
stores the frame information implied not, but...

> +An important caveat is that GCC arranges to save and restore only
> +those registers known to the specific architecture variant being
> +compiled for.  This can make @code{__builtin_setjmp} and
> +@code{__builtin_longjmp} more efficient than their library
> +counterparts in some cases, but it can also cause incorrect and
> +mysterious behavior when mixing with code that uses the full register
> +set.

...the combination of these two paragraphs made it less clear.
It sounded like __builtin_longjmp might somehow restore the registers
using save slots in the caller's frame.

Trying it out, AIUI:

- Unlike setjmp and longjmp, __builtin_setjmp and __builtin_longjmp
  only save and restore what's in the jump buffer, which as the
  documentation says is only enough information to return to the
  original stack frame.

- Any function F that calls __builtin_setjmp compensates for this by
  saving extra registers on entry and restoring them on exit, in order
  to present a normal function interface to F's callers.  I.e. it isn't
  __builtin_setjmp itself that does the saving, and __builtin_longjmp
  doesn't do any restoring.  I didn't realise this from reading the above.

Thanks,
Richard


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]