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: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub 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>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:52:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
--On Thursday, November 07, 2002 05:43:28 PM -0800 Richard Henderson
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 05:26:38PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Except that it also handles asynchronous exceptions, which ours doesn't.
Heh. Not that I've tried, but I bet theirs doesn't *really* handle
asynchronous exceptions any more than ours does. I bet the best they
can actually handle properly are synchronous exceptions -- which we
can also do with -fnon-call-exceptions.
The difference between SIGFPE and SIGALRM is very significant.
You're probably correct. They handle the SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, etc., kind
of stuff -- probably not SIGALRM.
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com