From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Carr To: Joe Buck Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: exception handling poll Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 19:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <199710172259.SAA29849@contents-vnder-pressvre.MIT.EDU> References: <199710171722.KAA07846@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg00779.html > > If that means setjmp exceptions on x86, then we do that. > > Um, are you sure? setjmp exceptions put extra code in the text section, > which must be paged in. No, I'm not sure. I guess we just can't win if exceptions are enabled with the current architecture, and that's why I want the binary incompatibility warning. > Well, I think we're going to break compatibility for C++ soon. We > pretty much have to to support namespaces and templated iostreams. > And we'll pretty much want to to get more efficient mangling of > template functions. Just for fun, try looking at the mangled symbols > generated for the methods of map . Someone should keep a list of changes that would help gcc but break compatibility so we can do them all at once.