Re: [c++-pthreads] What are the real issues?

[Nathan Myers <ncm@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:15:51PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:33:47AM -0800, Matt Austern wrote:
> My initial implementation of forced unwinding skipped catch-all,
> and ran destructors.  This was vetoed by G++ folks.

This is an example of proposed semantics (fortunately vetoed) that 
would have corrupted the process state, making the unwind pointless.

> The current implementation of forced unwinding is to treat it
> just like any other kind of exception.  Almost useless, IMO,
> since there's now a high likelyhood that longjmp_unwind will
> not arrive at its intended destination.

If that's part of its definition, then new code can be written with 
that in mind.  Vanishingly little existing code makes longjmp_unwind 
calls, so there need be no concern (in particular) about breaking 
third-party libraries.

Nathan Myers
ncm@xxxxxxxxxxx