This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:51:03 -0800
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
It is when they're written in gnu99. It's also a royal pain to require
a C++ compiler when building glibc; bootstrapping gets harder every
Well, you want C++ features, you need a C++ compiler. :-)
I'd rather see ISO C99 extensions getting added to G++ than features
that don't even exist in C++ getting added to GCC.
Then you require that all pthread_cleanup_push's which need to
be unwound properly be written in C++ source files.
I think that if you want exception-handling, you should use a language
that has that feature. (Otherwise, I want to add Prolog unification and
ML type inference to GNU C. :-))
And, if we really, really want exceptions in C, we should pick an
existing, standardized model from the C family of languages -- namely
the model in C++. Add try/catch, not try/finally.
Or, perhaps better, and taking into account RTH's comments, add
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com