catch(...) and forced unwind

[Mark Mitchell]

On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 13:54, Matt Austern wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2003, at 9:28 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 19:20, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:55:13 -0500, David Abrahams 
> >> <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Matt Austern <austern@apple.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> The real issue, of course is the old one: that the people defining 
> >>>> the
> >>>> POSIX standard and the people defining the C++ standard didn't
> >>>> spend enough time talking to each other.  POSIX doesn't know
> >>>> anything about C++ contracts.
> >>
> >>> Nor about standard C++ library functions, I presume?  Why should it
> >>> have any impact on the behavior of the C++ lib from a standards POV?
> >>
> >> The two standards are incompatible as written.  To make pthreads and 
> >> C++
> >> play nice together, one or both need some adjustment.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > In my opinion, the most logical way to do this is to make the following
> > changes:
> 
> I wonder if this is the right forum for this discussion?

I agree that it is not.

Some people want to make changes to GCC/G++/GLIBC and so the discussion
is taking place here.  

I think it would be a mistake to make those changes and check them in to
the FSF version of things without getting at least an informal buy-in
from both the POSIX threads and ISO C++ communities, but I seem to be
more conservative than most about these sorts of things.

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC