public inbox for pthreads-win32@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV@de.ibm.com>
To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: pthreads VCE: problem with destructor
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OFD94665B1.8675A5F5-ONC1256B28.004B5572@de.ibm.com> (raw)


> Please do not take my comments out of the context. The original text was
[...]
> I do not wanted the destructors to be run because this is nonportable.
> Before the setjmp/longjmp code the only working implementation for
> mingw32 was the c++ one that i disliked.

OK, just one more try...

Consider the following opinion:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3A8D120B.73749CEC%40compaq.com

"In any RATIONAL and USEFUL implementation that supports both POSIX threads
and
 C++, there's no different between "calling POSIX cleanup handlers" and
 "throwing a C++ exception", because thread cancellation and exit, and C++
 exceptions, are all instances of an underlying universal platform
exception
 infrastructure. That means that POSIX cleanup handlers will be run when a
 thrown C++ exception propagates through the frame in which the cleanup
handler
 has been pushed; and C++ object destructors will be run when a local
object is
 active in a frame through which a POSIX cancellation or exit propagates.

 The same, of course, must be true for any other language with exceptions
and
 handlers.

 Either the "system" is a "system", or it's a collection of spare parts
that
 happen to have been dumped in the same box. The latter may not explicitly
 violate any standards, and may even be usable with sufficient effort and
 restrictions; but that doesn't make it a good idea.

 System implementors should get this right. Application developers should
 demand it. The days are long gone when exceptions were some arcane thing
that
 only a few weird and non-mainstream languages supported. For a system to
work,
 exceptions must be integrated into the system's basic calling standard
along
 with issues like register usage and the appearance of stack frames.
There's
 simply no excuse for messing this up, and no excuses should be accepted!

 /------------------[ David.Butenhof@compaq.com ]------------------\
 | Compaq Computer Corporation              POSIX Thread Architect |
 |     My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/     |
 \-----[ http://home.earthlink.net/~anneart/family/dave.html ]-----/"

regards,
alexander.


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: "Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV@de.ibm.com>
To: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: pthreads VCE: problem with destructor
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 06:08:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OFD94665B1.8675A5F5-ONC1256B28.004B5572@de.ibm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20011220060800.9uWmYZ2p16dMzVApj9rD9dl3NqMuFlovTnyPZrV1k_0@z> (raw)

> Please do not take my comments out of the context. The original text was
[...]
> I do not wanted the destructors to be run because this is nonportable.
> Before the setjmp/longjmp code the only working implementation for
> mingw32 was the c++ one that i disliked.

OK, just one more try...

Consider the following opinion:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3A8D120B.73749CEC%40compaq.com

"In any RATIONAL and USEFUL implementation that supports both POSIX threads
and
 C++, there's no different between "calling POSIX cleanup handlers" and
 "throwing a C++ exception", because thread cancellation and exit, and C++
 exceptions, are all instances of an underlying universal platform
exception
 infrastructure. That means that POSIX cleanup handlers will be run when a
 thrown C++ exception propagates through the frame in which the cleanup
handler
 has been pushed; and C++ object destructors will be run when a local
object is
 active in a frame through which a POSIX cancellation or exit propagates.

 The same, of course, must be true for any other language with exceptions
and
 handlers.

 Either the "system" is a "system", or it's a collection of spare parts
that
 happen to have been dumped in the same box. The latter may not explicitly
 violate any standards, and may even be usable with sufficient effort and
 restrictions; but that doesn't make it a good idea.

 System implementors should get this right. Application developers should
 demand it. The days are long gone when exceptions were some arcane thing
that
 only a few weird and non-mainstream languages supported. For a system to
work,
 exceptions must be integrated into the system's basic calling standard
along
 with issues like register usage and the appearance of stack frames.
There's
 simply no excuse for messing this up, and no excuses should be accepted!

 /------------------[ David.Butenhof@compaq.com ]------------------\
 | Compaq Computer Corporation              POSIX Thread Architect |
 |     My book: http://www.awl.com/cseng/titles/0-201-63392-2/     |
 \-----[ http://home.earthlink.net/~anneart/family/dave.html ]-----/"

regards,
alexander.


             reply	other threads:[~2001-12-20 14:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-03-22 11:39 Alexander Terekhov [this message]
2001-12-20  6:08 ` Alexander Terekhov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-03-22 11:41 Bossom, John
2001-12-20  8:46 ` Bossom, John
2001-03-22 11:19 Thomas Pfaff
2001-12-20  4:40 ` Thomas Pfaff
2001-03-12  5:53 Alexander Terekhov
2001-12-20  2:35 ` Alexander Terekhov
2001-02-23  8:35 Bossom, John
2001-12-19 13:19 ` Bossom, John
2001-02-01  6:46 Alexander Terekhov
2001-12-19 11:30 ` Alexander Terekhov
2001-01-24 21:42 Alexander Terekhov
2001-12-19 11:01 ` Alexander Terekhov
2001-01-16 16:48 Bossom, John
2001-12-19  6:02 ` Bossom, John
2001-01-16  7:38 Alexander Terekhov
2001-12-19  4:40 ` Alexander Terekhov
2001-01-16  1:18 Gardian, Milan
2001-12-19  4:05 ` Gardian, Milan
2001-01-11  7:04 Bossom, John
2001-01-15  7:40 ` Ross Johnson
2001-01-24 14:02   ` reentrant
2001-03-10  6:41     ` Thomas Pfaff
2001-12-20  1:25       ` Thomas Pfaff
2001-12-19 10:22     ` reentrant
2001-12-19  3:38   ` Ross Johnson
2001-12-18 12:22 ` Bossom, John
2001-01-11  6:04 Mike Kinghan
2001-12-18  7:00 ` Mike Kinghan
2001-01-05  8:30 Gardian, Milan
2001-12-18  6:18 ` Gardian, Milan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=OFD94665B1.8675A5F5-ONC1256B28.004B5572@de.ibm.com \
    --to=terekhov@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).