From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26914 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 20:40:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26884 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2004 20:40:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040209204043.26883.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "jason at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030502212600.10606.sebor@roguewave.com> References: <20030502212600.10606.sebor@roguewave.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/10606] uncaught_exception() returns false too early X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg01038.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From jason at redhat dot com 2004-02-09 20:40 ------- Subject: Re: uncaught_exception() returns false too early On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 19:49:45 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > Jason, is the analysis in this PR correct? Looks like. And we also aren't incrementing uncaught_exception soon enough on a rethrow; we should do it in cxa_rethrow instead of cxa_end_catch. > If so, I guess the IA-64 EH ABI isn't good enough. We'd need to add a > new entry point to be used with catch types with non-trivial > constructors. Makes sense. Jason -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10606