This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Help: Unwinding the C++ stack...throw, longjmp & threads
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie.lokier@cern.ch>
- Subject: Re: Help: Unwinding the C++ stack...throw, longjmp & threads
- From: George Talbot <george@moberg.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:40:52 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@cygnus.com>, Oleg Krivosheev <kriol@fnal.gov>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.CYGNUS.com
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> George T. Talbot wrote:
> > I just had a thought...all I care about is enabling -fexceptions for
> > any function which is a cancellation point in the C library, or any
> > function that calls a cancellation point in the C library. Maybe
> > there's a way to narrow down which functions get -fexceptions applied
> > to them. I noticed that each function is in its own file, which is a
> > really good idea and should make that a bit easier. (Does such a list
> > exist already?)
>
> I would think improving the .eh_frame info so that functions without
> unwind handlers don't take any space in .eh_frame. I.e., some mechanism
> for "default unwinding" using the frame pointer.
>
> Then -fexceptions would be irrelevant to a C library. Exceptions would
> always work.
I would REALLY like to see this. This would mean that it wouldn't really
matter whether -fexceptions was on or not, size-wise, so people could
leave it on all the time.
Anybody know how to do it?
--
George T. Talbot
<george@moberg.com>