This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 16:44:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
- References: <AFCEFC60-6551-11D7-B09F-003065A77310@apple.com>
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:25:54 -0800, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com> wrote:
>> A catch-all block may be executed during forced unwinding. For instance, a
>> longjmp may execute code in a catch(...) during stack unwinding. However,
>> if this happens, unwinding will proceed at the end of the catch-all block,
>> whether or not there is an explicit rethrow.
>
> Either, this is ambiguous and states that each vendor may choose to run
> catch(...) code during forced unwinding, which, in my estimation, it cannot
> do, as behavior like this must be decided so that the user can know what
> the semantics are, or, it states that the catch (...) code _must_ _always_
> be run. Only the latter makes any sense. So, unless you want to rewrite
> the the standard, it must be run. In any event, the standard should be
> clarified so that it is perfectly clear to both you and I what it means.
Actually, the intent was that it's implementation-defined. That an
implementation can run catch (...) blocks if it can figure out a way to do
it correctly, but that it isn't required. I think we shouldn't bother, at
least for now.
Jason