Re: sjlj-exceptions ICE. simplified test case

[Tom Tromey <tromey at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

Andrew> From the gcj (Java) point of view, I most strongly object to
Andrew> this suggestion.  Yes, we prefer to use range table based
Andrew> exceptions, but sjlj exceptions are a useful way to begin
Andrew> porting Java to a new target, and to remove sjlj support
Andrew> before we've ported range tables to all our targets will cause
Andrew> us great pain.

Mark> However, we should all be aware that every feature, even ones
Mark> that already exist, have a substantial maintenance cost.
Mark> Perhaps, from the point of view gcj development, sjlj exceptions
Mark> "just work".  But, Richard just spent some time tracking down
Mark> bugs that only occurred in that context, and lots of other
Mark> people have had to debug similar problems in the past.  Some of
Mark> those resources could probably have been devoted to implementing
Mark> the DWARF2 unwind support for a few more targets.

However, it isn't that simple either.  Resources aren't really
completely fluid like that.  And I gather that porting the remaining
targets to table-based exceptions isn't being done.  I think Andrew's
point is that we all agree that table-based exceptions are the way to
go.  But ditching them before they are more completely implemented
would be a real problem.

Tom