Re: implement __attribute__((cleanup(function)))

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 01:53:50PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi David, Gerald,
> 
> On 5 May 2003, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 
> > This extension is obviously not as simple as one might think.  I still
> > think coming up with a new extension is a mistake.  I'd much rather go
> > with try/finally, a well-known extension that is likely to be
> > standardized, than coming up with a new extension with odd interactions
> > with other extensions that we already have.
> 
> On Mon, 5 May 2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
> 
> > I refuse to have this discussion.  I've done it twice now in
> > favour of try/finally, and now you want to start in on the only
> > technically sound replacement that's been proposed since.
> >
> > Argue this with someone else and let me know when yall are done.
> 
> I hereby request as formerly as I know that the steering committee
> discusses and resolves the issue about try/finally in GCC.
> 
> _My_ personal opinion is that we will accept it if we can define it.
> There were useful definitions of it in the past (I remember to have
> written one some months ago, when it was a hot topic on gcc-patches@).
> As we can't seem to resolve it by normal discussions and that leads to
> (seemingly) frustration of developers I think the committee should do,
> what it was supposed to do (IMHO).

At the risk of being obvious, I don't believe that discussion is
appropriate for 3.3.  I also don't see any actual risk in adding
__attribute__((cleanup)) on the branch.  So can we have this discussion
in a few weeks, please?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer