This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java 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: backtrace() vs. _Unwind_Backtrace()


Mohan Embar writes:
  > > > 
 > > > ...so is my analysis correct that because of these additions, we can now
 > > > revert to DWARF EH on Win32? Ranjit?
 > 
 > >Well, it's true that in general you no longer have to unwind through
 > >exception handler frames.  However, there's still a problem with
 > >exceptions thrown in CNI code.  I am proposing, probably post 3.4
 > >split, to change CNI so that null pointer checks are enabled even in
 > >CNI code.
 > 
 > >So, DWARF EH sounds like a batter plan.  Unless there's some other
 > >reason I don't know about...
 > 
 > I wasn't clear on whether you meant now or post-3.4.

Probably post-3.4.  I'm open to suggestions.

 > (The CNI code is completely bug-free, so this shouldn't be an issue, right?)

Well, it's not that, exactly.  

The run time is supposed to detect null pointer accesses in CNI code
automagically; this works fine with proper signal unwinding, but not
otherwise.  The change that will enable null pointer checking even in
CNI code is not ABI compatible, and is such a disruptive change that I
want to postpone it until after 3.4 branches.

Andrew.


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