Projects

Sat May 6 01:43:00 GMT 2000

> Date: 2000年5月05日 17:28:02 -0400
> From: Jeff Sturm <jsturm@sigma6.com>
>> "Jonathan P. Olson" wrote:
> > The exception handling patches are definitely alot messier than write
> > barriers. Exceptions in gcc are currently quite broken on many architectures
> > and terribly inefficient on others. There are two different exception handling
> > strategies intermingled in the gcc code. Adding a third makes an enormous
> > spaghetti bowl and is contrary to the overall goal of eliminating compilation
> > options. I opted for just replacing the existing code, but I doubt if that's
> > politically acceptable for gcc in general since libraries are currently built
> > using the existing mechanism(s).
>> FYI I think one goal of GCC 3.0 is to eliminate the current sjlj
> expection
> handling mechanism. Apparently some maintainers feel it has caused more
> trouble than it was worth.

This is not, to the best of my knowledge, a current goal. Some
maintainers do indeed feel this, but strong objections have been
raised by Java and Ada developers. Losing sjlj exceptions would cause
considerable pain for Java users and I would ask everyone for their
help in opposing any future calls for this.
One very important technical objection to losing sjlj exceptions is
that with the current range table mechanism, exceptions cannot be
thrown from signal handlers, which is a critical requirement for some
embedded applications.
If the technical problems with range table exceptions are solved on
all of our target platforms we can indeed abandon sjlj exceptions.
That time is some way off.
Andrew.