This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [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 <rth@redhat.com> wrote:

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                mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC            http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
  - From: Richard Henderson

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