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]

Re: New ABI EH (was Re: C++ PATCH: Switch to the new ABI)

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <> writes:

    >> This was the last remaining major bit of functionality for GCC
    >> 3.0; from now on, we will be focusing on compile-time
    >> performance, run-time performance and robustness.

    Jason> Remember that the new EH ABI has still not been
    Jason> implemented, so we aren't yet compliant with the ia64 ABI;

True -- but again IA64 isn't one of our primary platforms.  I think we
consciously decided to wait on IA64 until our next release due to the
general newness of the platform.

    Jason> we ought to do at least enough to provide
    Jason> forward-compatibility with the new ABI before gcc 3.0.
    Jason> This basically means the personality routine, unwinder API
    Jason> and exception model.  We will eventually want to switch
    Jason> over to the more efficient landing pad scheme, but that can
    Jason> wait.

I'm confused.  I tried to raise the issue of using the C++ bits of the
EH model with you and RTH a while back, and I thought that y'all
suggested that there was no reason to use a scheme other than our
current scheme on non-IA64 targets?

Could you clarify a little what your thinking is on this at this
point?  For example, what do you want to do on IA32 w.r.t. EH?

    Jason> We may be able to get a lot of this code from HP and/or
    Jason> SGI.

Perhaps.  I take it that Red Hat is not planning on contributing any
IA64 EH C++ stuff?  (I thought that you guys might be doing this as
part of your IA64 work; if you're not, then it would be helpful to
know that.)


Mark Mitchell         
CodeSourcery, LLC     

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