From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19953 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2002 17:58:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19943 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2002 17:58:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2002 17:58:40 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7Hv5P11965; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:57:05 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7Hwcl21986; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:58:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (frothingslosh.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.27]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7HwcD22422; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:58:38 -0800 Received: (from rth@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA7HwcB26018; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:58:38 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:58:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson To: Fergus Henderson Cc: Aldy Hernandez , "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: [basic-improvements] try/finally support for c/c++ Message-ID: <20021107175838.GB26004@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson , Fergus Henderson , Aldy Hernandez , "Joseph S. Myers" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, jason@redhat.com References: <20021106070622.GA31658@redhat.com> <20021106183215.GE7736@redhat.com> <20021106185333.GF22066@redhat.com> <20021107014832.GC4193@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021107014832.GC4193@ceres.cs.mu.oz.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00478.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 12:48:32PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote: > Undefined behaviour is pretty drastic. Would it be sufficient to just > make it implementation-defined whether or not longjmp() invokes cleanups > (i.e. destructors and finally blocks)? If you're using sjlj exceptions, you'll actually confuse the unwinder by using longjmp. Something that might be fixable, but requires more processor-specific code. r~