This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com
- Date: 02 May 2003 15:19:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20030430175335.GA18958@twiddle.net><email@example.com><20030430210342.GB697@redhat.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><20030430230239.GH697@redhat.com> <3EB05952.email@example.com><20030430235053.GR19185@tofu.dreamhost.com><20030501001759.GO697@redhat.com><firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mark Mitchell <email@example.com> writes:
| But we shouldn't go silently breaking millions of lines of until-now
| exception-safe ISO-conformant code that happens to use "catch(...)"
| rather than destructors. I'd ever so much rather debug a
| why-didn't-my-thread-go-away bug than a
| why-is-my-data-in-an-inconsistent-state bug.
strongly seconded. If we choose to map thread cancellation into
exception, then it rather obeys basic EH rules -- even though RAII is
certainly a good practice.