This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>, "zack at codesourcery dot com" <zack at codesourcery dot com>, "jakub at redhat dot com" <jakub at redhat dot com>, "aldyh at redhat dot com" <aldyh at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:06:29 -0800
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
- References: <20021107234453.GE26257@redhat.com> <133260000.1036714743@warlock.codesourcery.com>
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:19:03PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> It has somewhat fancy semantics...
Well, the __finally part of Microsoft's extensions are fairly normal.
It's the __except part of their extensions that are fancy. That's
the one I *don't* want to implement. ;-)
> I would prefer longjmp_unwind; that's something we're supposed to
> have anyhow, and it would be very useful in making existing C
> libraries play more nicely with C++, so implementing that would be
> a definite win.
I'll play with this week after next and see how it goes. If it
can be made to interoperate correctly across c/c++, as well as
not absolutely requiring C to be compiled with -fexceptions, then
we'll go ahead with that.
r~