This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: 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 16:04:05 -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> <20031215221841.GK25423@redhat.com> <uhe01lkpj.fsf@boost-consulting.com>

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:34:00PM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> Meaning that I have to know specifically about pthreads.

Yes.

> While I agree that it's a widespread threading standard, I don't
> think that's a good precedent to set.

It's made unavoidable by the way pthreads has been defined.
You'll either have to ifdef or come up with some wrappers.
That's the nature of real-life portability...

r~

References:
- catch(...) and forced unwind
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: catch(...) and forced unwind
  - From: David Abrahams

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