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: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 12 Apr 2003 16:30:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
Organization: Integrable Solutions
References: <wvln0j8spyy.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com><022e01c2fcde$c04853e0$4d01a8c0@firm.hellerehrman.com><20030407144255.GA512@earth.cs.mu.oz.au><001401c2fd2a$0d31daa0$20d462d8@xyz><20030408044308.GA3805@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au>

Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU> writes:

| On 07-Apr-2003, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com> wrote:
| > longjmp_unwind can already penetrate throw ().
| 
| Hmm... I'm not sure that was a good decision.
| Was the ISO C++ committee consulted at all about that?

I didn't see any question/query to that effect.

-- Gaby

References:
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Fergus Henderson
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Fergus Henderson

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