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


On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:49 PM, David Abrahams wrote:

Yep, I appreciate your point. I just wanted to make the distinction
clear
for those who weren't familiar with pthreads, especially since we were
talking about David Butenhof's opinion. He's very clear that he thinks
asynchronous cancelation (in the technical POSIX sense) is an evil
feature, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that he feels that way
about deferred cancellation.

Right. Nothing at all wrong with deferred cancellation per say. Deferred cancellation good; violating contracts bad.

The real issue, of course is the old one: that the people defining the POSIX standard and the people defining the C++ standard didn't spend enough time talking to each other. POSIX doesn't know anything about C++ contracts.

--Matt


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