Re: catch(...) and forced unwind

[Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>]

On Dec 16, 2003, at 9:28 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 19:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:55:13 -0500, David Abrahams 
> > <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > > Nor about standard C++ library functions, I presume?  Why should it
> > > have any impact on the behavior of the C++ lib from a standards POV?
> >
> > The two standards are incompatible as written.  To make pthreads and 
> > C++
> > play nice together, one or both need some adjustment.
>
> I agree.
>
> In my opinion, the most logical way to do this is to make the following
> changes:

I wonder if this is the right forum for this discussion?

I agree with you and Jason that the C++ and POSIX standards are
incompatible.  I also agree that it's very important to reconcile
them, and that it's an embarrassment that it's taken so long to
do it.  Essentially, you're proposing a C++ binding to (a part of)
POSIX.

The reason I wonder whether this is the right forum: this is the
gcc mailing list.  But we don't want a gcc C++ POSIX binding, we
want to have the same C++ POSIX binding for all relevant compilers
and operating systems.

			--Matt