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


On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 08:52:54AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:56:54AM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > Again, I urge you to spend ten minutes or so trying to think about a way
> > to make "C" shared libraries callable from C++ with less work and
> > thought for end users than a recompilation with yet another new and
> > mysterious gcc flag.
> 
> I've spent a *lot* of time thinking about this.  I can't think of
> any solution except to compile with (at least) -funwind-tables.
> 
> > It was really nice when this became something that
> > "just worked," and it would be a shame to lose this.
> 
> Does it help to know that ia64 and x86_64 *always* include 
> unwind tables, and so it will continue to "just work" there?  ;-)
> 
> Really, I think it's about time to revisit re-enabling unwind
> tables by default in C.  The overhead when using current 
> binutils and glibc has dropped to just about zero.

FYI, GDB is getting rapidly (well, rapid for GDB) closer to being able
to use unwind information everywhere.  It'd be helpful to have it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


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