Re: exception handling poll

[Per Bothner <bothner at cygnus dot com>]

Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
> Um, are you sure?  setjmp exceptions put extra code in the text section,
> which must be paged in.

I'm wondering if you and John Carr might be mis-understanding one other.
I understood John to mean that using setjmp would satisfy the
requirement of no cost in code that does not *contain a handler",
while still allowing exceptions to pass through such code.

Joe's point seems to be that having setjmp code in the text segment
is worse than having eh ranges in an eh section which is normally
not pages in.  That is true - the problem is that we would still
need some eh info for functions with no handlers, if they can
be thrown through, but that is not the case (I think) for a
setjmp-based solution, though it is otherwise more expensive.

	--Per Bothner
Cygnus Solutions     bothner@cygnus.com     http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner