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: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 14:26:37 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Michael Matz wrote:
> > I apologize to Aldy too -- the patches are technically sound, and the
> > goal of improving interactions between threads and C++ is a good one.
> You still seem to concentrate on just the threading issue in glibc.
> While that may have been the original reason to implement it, as already
> demonstrated repeatedly it has other uses. In fact I don't care a little
> bit about threading, I'm not interested in how cancellation is
> implemented. In fact I think, once it is implemented in whichever way,
> most users of GCC will not care about that.
They will care about the bloat from the frame info, necessary on
the execution path from the "exception" to the "finally" point.
Right, compile code in-between with -fexceptions. Problem is,
how do I know what code is in-between on the execution path so
I can compile only that with -fexceptions?
Won't *somebody* think of the children^Wlittle executables?
(Proactively: Yes I *know* that stuff isn't mapped in until
exception time, but that's not the point.)