This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Java vs. Dwarf2 EH Unwinder

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:11:10 -0800
Subject: Re: Java vs. Dwarf2 EH Unwinder
References: <3CA270FF.5090905@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <15522.58094.605304.675788@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:31:26AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Surely you'd need to pass the entire processor state to
> the _Unwind_RaiseException() variant.

Indeed.  I would be willing to create a variant that
took a sigcontext* or something.

> This would only work if the kernel saved the entire processor state in
> the sigcontext and then called the signal handler.  This does happen
> on some architectures, but not all, and therefore it's not a totally
> general solution.

There has to be enough information for the kernel to
restore enough state.  What do you have in mind as an
example of not-enough-state being saved?

r~

References:
- Java vs. Dwarf2 EH Unwinder
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Java vs. Dwarf2 EH Unwinder
  - From: Andrew Haley

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