This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com
- Date: 30 Apr 2003 22:23:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20030430175335.GA18958@twiddle.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030430210342.GB697@redhat.com> <email@example.com> <20030501051351.GA30795@redhat.com>
On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 22:13, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:49:32PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Now that we've made you rewrite your patch for the nth time, how close
> > are you to being done? :-)
> Fairly close, I think.
> We still need to notice which ISO C functions are POSIX
> cancellation points, but I suggest we simply do this all the
> time rather than under the control of some flag -- the benefit
> of doing otherwise will surely be minimal.
Agreed. In fact, as Nathan Myers points out, if we can compile code so
that it works either single-thread or multi-threaded, that's a big win.
So, if we just always assume that POSIX cancellation points can throw, I
think that's fine.
> Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> CodeSourcery, LLC