This is the mail archive of the 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: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding

> I don't know.  I'm still trying to grasp why terminate() is considered a
> good (or even acceptable) choice here.

I suggest you go read this entire thread:

so that you have more context.

It's not considered good by any of the C++ people, as far as I can
tell.  The only acceptable thing about calling terminate when a
catch(...) does not rethrow is that it is (a) better than skipping the
catch(...) entirely, which was the original suggestion, and (b) provides
a forward-compatible way to fix things later (in that you can just not
call terminate and let the exception propagate as it should.)

> Just to make sure everyone is aware of it, Mr.Butenhof, a noted POSIX
> threading expert, has done work on Tru64 along these very same lines
> ( 

Yes, this is precisely what I, Nathan Myers, and others, have argued is
the right answer.

At this point, we're merrily going around telling each other how much we
all agree with each other, but none of us is the person who can actually
influence the outcome.  That's up to Ulrich Drepper, copied above, and
he is apparently as-of-yet unpersuaded.

Mark Mitchell <>
CodeSourcery, LLC

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