From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from NAM04-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam08olkn2084.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.45.84]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A611E38930F3 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org A611E38930F3 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=H50b5o/LRz3ytPfVJ3+yYBvvZcvnhGsZ0ekC7lFygLulPp/zuCcTX+CDKDm9uppKRfVf7nhIA3prvNOihKL+cIrQn6qgPz5k7dvww6BLOl4Cq112YrMDTo1QChab4tvgkkAgyMCtJHvAmM99UZ7q0TzZvSQRGLqoH5voQQ51+pfmVXhreAD86Cgrd2HW7TUydnO8aRS1Akbles2Z0raLEai258fx2XIexJ9PrstcPYSVw6NQk6ORLOsm+HXKy9b2BDS+99vtuqPBo0u89DmQ4w8CyrdyB4yC7H7edsQs9zJ1Yf2MU96Xe8SL5Tk7qor/rwtivSwaCGiB6X85Zwrq7Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=U9ur5Gzpp1fNEwnRkq+3bg3E8yI2UDM3Zh5K3gh/OyQ=; b=Bhgw5kLUG0cjsNOFfVeTI9/mlV7YCO6rTUbGtoG69ayoTnZmZYo7e8D0nYyThDSEuS3Pffl2VhCgCwdBjwoo/of26r93W24pgk7Tl0dtSOi3a4M0YAFDtRL7hdLAL6mlFyjPI0fR41/5a7IRy6IZ7s7NTcK90flaJSLpJu7bAp7mNG6W9P/5d3UcdGulnTZkVKKNpaMLWysmiK6WJBANM8d2qghadyxcSigTyPEIMEjCsdbCEmSskhEXTvDTMkTPoO3RXjxJ7boueI1Y64mgnlK/t/G3R5o03PtTHLE8h9MZWI/0S8sbBNcxhsHw71pNnV15PUqWvHZYk9isjwNAMQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none Received: from BN3NAM04FT011.eop-NAM04.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.92.54) by BN3NAM04HT106.eop-NAM04.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.93.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3763.11; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:31 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB4697.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e4e::45) by BN3NAM04FT011.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7e4e::149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3763.12 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:31 +0000 Received: from DM6PR05MB4697.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f1ff:8e09:63de:86ec]) by DM6PR05MB4697.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::f1ff:8e09:63de:86ec%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3784.007; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:31 +0000 From: unlvsur unlvsur To: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "jakub@redhat.com" Subject: Is that possible to implement deterministic exception easily? Thread-Topic: Is that possible to implement deterministic exception easily? Thread-Index: AQHW7dxh7nhO5+TToUiyKMNWxlXEqg== Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:A5416198629C4FDE2EDE1290682ECC61C3E0763861E86DADF93DFAEDEB1D9F9F; UpperCasedChecksum:B68222B7650F1BFE606249FAECE484624118EE0EDA323BCD48CD247D3B0ABD96; SizeAsReceived:6702; Count:41 x-tmn: [0d6l9dBrh/gnO3R6BwSA3Z7muw0Ii9oa] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-incomingheadercount: 41 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6dd16e14-6bee-4063-12ab-08d8bbf3f3d1 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3NAM04HT106: x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: T8pmyqAwt+pNraEwXstiwtIJ9B6T7hoqOvdQZ+FFVhhVNaKY0mWDQoa8hcu2KeoQrtMXkeDOArdnAQpgX4FrI/Wop7R47FTocY4FdJh1ve2BEVlUsI6VrTmucCzwfvH+vfpl+Vd5Hv1nI5LL+rnsHUIqva+Dfp0R4m2yiosmdO7GpEGRKfyeKAa+OiGdkQykUoRP2c6N6NgYImyDUw08LhZqh5g2aQ7eMy+kITUEtgqZDv8lc2z6LaeZNNR1NsFLgiI4VrOEcKks8po6c+VOP3bH8nlaqz3dSMf+4eSUV/w= x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: M4XNJ9wEBM/YJ471gWKrNfDsdxfsX8Ek/r6x7f6sDKGu/vKVBpOKP3Gb2Os5KmFBGTS/xh8HuTuHpUIT0mavszxWidM0ivDIPq7JtPSWndSc4bl5TkAXo8qOYMEWYHYupLxtr3U3z+CgVb5S0OmgTg== x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: live.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN3NAM04FT011.eop-NAM04.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6dd16e14-6bee-4063-12ab-08d8bbf3f3d1 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jan 2021 20:59:30.1125 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3NAM04HT106 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:59:34 -0000 I guess adding calling convention for new C++ deterministic exception optio= n is hard and that requires changes among front-end, middle-end and back-en= d altogether. However, I desperately need that feature since current C++ exceptions are t= otally unusable. void f() throws {} The failure bit will be passed by using CPU carry flag. Is that possible to= implement it easily? Sent from Mail for Window= s 10