From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
To: khan@xraylith.wisc.edu (Mumit Khan)
Cc: hjl@lucon.org, egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: EH bug in Makefile.in
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 20:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <199710260332.UAA08639@atrus.synopsys.com>
References: <199710251645.LAA18043@eh_pc11.xraylith.wisc.edu>
X-SW-Source: 1997-10/msg01074.html

Mumit writes:

>   d. stock + gas-971023 + -fexceptions:	3 failures in total
> 
> Looks like HJ Lu's suggestion that eh.o (libgcc2.c) must be compiled with
> -fexceptions is right on the money here.

Yes, I've just confirmed this (well, my gas, from 2.8.0.1.15, calls
itself 970731: is this what you meant?).

With my stock Red Hat 4.2 Linux, changing Makefile.in to use -fexceptions
for libgcc2 and installing a copy of the new gas as $(libsubdir)/as,
I get

FAIL: g++.benjamin/warn01.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.jason/destruct3.C - (test for bogus messages, line 38)
FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast1.C  Execution test
XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast2.C  Execution test
FAIL: g++.mike/eh35.C  Execution test

Pretty impressive!  Question though: do folks think MRS's exception tests
cover the problem areas well, or are there other failure modes (someone
mentioned that delete is not called if a contructor for an object
allocated by new throws an exception, are there others?)?

As you know, I've been eager to permit use of egcs on older Linux systems
with the egcs compiler installed in a different directory (I use
/usr/local/egcs as prefix).  I'm willing to accept dropping in a new gas
to do this (I built mine without enable-shared so I just have one file to
deal with, at least until I upgrade the whole system).  If it were trivial
to modify things so that an older gas would work as well, that would be
nice but it should be low priority.