[basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ - more tests
Mark Mitchell
mark@codesourcery.com
Tue Nov 12 08:20:00 GMT 2002
>> So for me, the question isn't whether an extension might be useful
>> for someone, but whether it's so very useful to enough people that it
>> can overcome a strong bias against adding extensions. Some extensions
>> pass that test; I'm not yet convinced that this one does.
>
> Yes, and I ask for specific reasons why this wouldn't pass.
I (and probably Matt) are going to argue that the burden is not on us
to provide a specific reason *not to* have an extension; the burden is
on you *to* provide a specific reason to have the extension. The
reason that I would find compelling is that there is no way to achieve
some vital piece of functionality without the extension.
Richard's recent TLS extension met that criteria to me; that gives you
a portable way of writing code that takes advantage of the TLS support
in the linker. I couldn't think of any other good way to do that, so
I didn't object.
Introducing a new control-flow construct into a language that has been
used for decades without that control-flow construct is a much more
radical change. There's no question the extension would be useful; the
question is whether it is essential.
Anyhow, I think you're beating a dead horse. :-)
Richard has agreed to try to implement and use longjmp_unwind. There's
no question that function would be useful to people in other situations,
and it doesn't require any language extension. If Richard's attempt
fails for some reason, we can reconsider.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list