This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc conformance to HP-PA ABI
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Subject: Re: gcc conformance to HP-PA ABI
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:10:32 -0600
- cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, hainque at act-europe dot fr
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <10007081218.AA14728@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>you write:
> Better to hack it in the direction we'd like to go (dwarf2 unwinders)
> than in a direction we do not want to go (compatible with HP's
> unwinder library).
>
> Why is that a direction we don't want to go? Isn't it always better for GC
> to be compatible with as many vendor features as possible? Shouldn't we be
> able to mix vendor- and GCC-built object files when processing exceptions?
>
> What about linking with third-party libraries and propagating exceptions
> through them? Wouldn't that be simpler if using HP's unwinder library?
What's the point of even trying given our C++ ABI isn't even close to
compatibility with HP's C++ compiler?
What's the point when (to the best of my knowledge) that's not the unwinding
code used by HP for unwinding from exceptions?
What's the point when the conventions for the unwinder place unreasonable
restrictions on code generation?
What's the point when HP itself wants to move more towards standards like
dwarf2 than their own one of a kind implementation?
Jeff