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: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>,"zack at codesourcery dot com" <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"aldyh at redhat dot com" <aldyh at redhat dot com>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:52:37 -0500
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
- References: <email@example.com>
On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:26:38 -0800, Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> That's why the proposal is about __try/__finally only, not __except
>> where it is e.g. not clear at all what happens if you throw in C++
>> and __except control expression returns -1.
>> At least from what I read in MSFT docs on the web, their __try/__finally
>> matches Aldy's patch.
> Except that it also handles asynchronous exceptions, which ours doesn't.
> Where we'd get a SIGFPE you get a structured exception in Microsoft's
That has nothing to do with the semantics of try/finally, which just deals
with cleaning up after whatever exceptions do happen to be thrown.