This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: David Abrahams <dave at boost-consulting dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, ncm at cantrip dot org, wekempf at cox dot net, fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:41 -0800
- Subject: Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
- References: <xypwu91ofvf.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com> <ud6at1wvg.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <xypekv9nr9u.fsf@miranda.boston.redhat.com> <u65gkyhv4.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20031215044559.GC3667@redhat.com> <u8yler71p.fsf@boost-consulting.com>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 12:20:18AM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> > If you don't want to know about pthread_setcancelstate, then you should
> > not use pthread_cancel either. If you never use pthread_cancel, then
> > none of this thread is even relevant.
>
> I'm a library provider ;-)
Then you have to either have to document that the library is
not cancelation safe and point users at TFM when they don't
read it, or expect pthread_cancel to be used and thus call
pthread_setcancelstate appropriately.
r~