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()


On Dec 6, 2003, at 3:55 AM, Mohan Embar wrote:

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...

The mingw people don't want DWARF EH for C/C++ because they need to throw through OS frames, and the OS frames of course don't have unwind info. So, unless another solution can be found for that, we'd need to enable DWARF EH for Java exceptions (and of course Java exceptions in CNI code), but not for standard C++ exceptions. I havn't investigated, but my feeling is that might not be trivial.


I wasn't clear on whether you meant now or post-3.4.

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

No, because various APIs are expected to throw NullPointer or ArrayIndex exceptions upon invalid input, but we don't want to have to explicitly check for these.


Regards

Bryce.




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