Re: [SPAM] - Re: [c++-pthreads] Re: FW: RE: Re: I'm Lost - Email found in subject

[Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted Baker wrote:

> A core issue will be the canonical implementation model.  I see two
> approaches:
> 
> (A) Limit required semantics to what can be implemented using the POSIX C API,
> in C++-specific libraries, possibly with some help from the C++ compiler.
> 
> (B) Create new semantics, which go beyond what can be done using the
> POSIX C API. 

Yes, this is an excellent point to clarify.

I believe the assumption here is that we must be in choice (B).  As you
say, even the "forced unwinding" exception approach presently
implemented on GNU/Linux requires help from the C library; it's not
something that be done atop a "generic" POSIX C library, at least
without dynamic linker magic.  Any mechanism for running C++ destructors
 with reasonable performance is going to require help from the C library.

In the case of GNU/Linux, the C library is already providing
functionality for C++ beyond what's required for POSIX: just not the
functionality that is emerging as the consensus here. :-)

But, your point is well-taken; it's important that we're on the same page.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(650) 331-3385 x713