From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <insight-return-5446-listarch-insight=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 6213 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2005 15:28:06 -0000
Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:insight-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/insight/>
List-Post: <mailto:insight@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insight-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: insight-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 6204 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2005 15:28:03 -0000
Received: from host217-40-213-68.in-addr.btopenworld.com (HELO SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM) (217.40.213.68)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:28:03 +0000
Received: from mace ([192.168.1.25]) by SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:28:02 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Andrew STUBBS'" <andrew.stubbs@st.com>,
	<insight@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: RE: MinGW setjmp SEGV
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:28:00 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <op.su1hpkl6o669wz@terrorhawk.bri.st.com>
Message-ID: <SERRANOu4A9FKQ02gKW000000ce@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
X-SW-Source: 2005-q3/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2

----Original Message----
>From: Andrew STUBBS
>Sent: 05 August 2005 15:40


> Many apologies. I have got the diff backwards! It is tcl 8.4.1 that is
> broken and AFAIKT CVS HEAD is little altered.
> 
> Please find a correct one attached.
> 
> Andrew Stubbs

  Aha, that makes more sense, thanks.

  I don't understand the need for it yet, though; can you enlarge on the
problem or point me at a tcl.sourceforge bugzilla report?  This patch would
affect cygwin as well as mingw, since it also defines HAVE_NO_SEH; AFAIUI,
the macro means 'have no seh support in the compiler' rather than 'have no
seh in the target OS', but cygwin (apparently) is happy enough using 'doze
SEH, and I don't understand the comment about "Unlike Borland and Microsoft
we don't ....  pushing registration records onto the runtime stack."  Yet
the EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION variable "registration" is on the stack and
appears to be linked into the 'doze SEH chain in pretty much the usual
fashion.  I'm sure this is just my lack of comprehension.

  OTOH this patch would seem to address my concerns about the reentrancy
problems of using static _ESP and _EBP variables.

  Should or shouldn't the same changes be made to the exception handling in
tclWinFCmd.c and tclWinChan.c as well?

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....