This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
- From: David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting dot com>
- To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, wekempf at cox dot net, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, William Kempf <williamkempf at hotmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:55:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
- References: <xypwu91ofvf.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com><ud6at1wvg.fsf@boost-consulting.com><xypekv9nr9u.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com><u65gkyhv4.fsf@boost-consulting.com><20031214035909.GE2416@tofu.dreamhost.com><xypk74xltaa.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com><ullpdlksl.fsf@boost-consulting.com><xyp1xr5lh5q.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com><usmjlhryu.fsf@boost-consulting.com><278A5A0A-3001-11D8-8564-00039390D9E0@apple.com><usmjkbkb5.fsf@boost-consulting.com><0BB52C3C-3009-11D8-8564-00039390D9E0@apple.com><ud6aobfgy.fsf@boost-consulting.com><A156A7B0-3012-11D8-8564-00039390D9E0@apple.com>
Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:
> On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:49 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>> Yep, I appreciate your point. I just wanted to make the distinction
>>> clear
>>> for those who weren't familiar with pthreads, especially since we were
>>> talking about David Butenhof's opinion. He's very clear that he
>>> thinks
>>> asynchronous cancelation (in the technical POSIX sense) is an evil
>>> feature, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he feels that way
>>> about deferred cancellation.
>>
>> Right. Nothing at all wrong with deferred cancellation per say.
>> Deferred cancellation good; violating contracts bad.
>
> The real issue, of course is the old one: that the people defining the
> POSIX standard and the people defining the C++ standard didn't
> spend enough time talking to each other. POSIX doesn't know
> anything about C++ contracts.
Nor about standard C++ library functions, I presume? Why should it
have any impact on the behavior of the C++ lib from a standards POV?
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com