This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- From: Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,drepper at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:56:19 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- References: <20030430175335.GA18958@twiddle.net> <1051727981.3301.100.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20030430210342.GB697@redhat.com> <1051743305.3301.248.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <wvl4r4finq6.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com> <1051748960.3301.295.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <wvlznm7h09z.fsf@prospero.boston.redhat.com> <or4r4f713e.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:16:53AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2003, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I have an idea for how to DTRT here: give terminate() as the
> > destructor for the exception object in the forced unwind case.
>
> How about, instead of terminate(), a function that rethrows the
> cancellation?
No, that's a default, invisible change to exception semantics.
User code that doesn't re-throw generally doesn't for serious reasons.
If it's the wrong reason, they need to find out, not just silently
have their process state silently corrupted.
Nathan Myers
ncm@cantrip.org