This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, rth at twiddle dot net,jason at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 21:18:10 +0200
Subject: Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
References: <20030401021229.GA6277@twiddle.net><1049172323.31975.547.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com><20030401113236.795e7fa7.bkoz@redhat.com>

Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com> writes:

|> How does -fsjlj-exceptions and --enable-sjlj-exceptions fit into this? I
|> was under the impression that some targets (m68k, say, but others) still
|> don't have call frame exception capability.

m68k now has DWARF2 unwind support in 3.3, known to work on m68k-linux.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab at suse dot de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

References:
- [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [RFC] C++ vs forced unwinding
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik

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