Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:43:50 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: joerg@britannica.bec.de Subject: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10607121143n1a5fba00ueee37ecfe14a1ce1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060712113516.GC2162@britannica.bec.de> References: <44B2D2DF.2000401@sh.cvut.cz> <courier.44B35DBC.00003F75@intron.ac> <86fyh8zgw8.fsf@xps.des.no> <courier.44B37714.00004B4D@intron.ac> <868xn0z8w9.fsf@xps.des.no> <courier.44B3B9A0.0000609C@intron.ac> <20060711152949.GB1463@merlin.emma.line.org> <1152642474.29859@origin.intron.ac> <3bbf2fe10607111437h6547432fn2887348708df29a4@mail.gmail.com> <20060712113516.GC2162@britannica.bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2006/7/12, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de>: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:37:52PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > > Even if I have no proof-of-concepts (so maybe somebody can show that > > this is not fair), if we have setjmp/longjmp in the kernel we can have > > a correct exception handling mechanism without not great problems. > > ROFL. Sorry, but using setjmp/longjmp is one of the worst possible > implementation of exceptions since it is very expensive for the hot > path, where you don't expect exceptions. They are called "exception" for > a reason. Well, this is not what I meant. As exceptions are performed through stack unrolling (which is the basic mechanism of setjmp/longjmp) it might not be impossible to implement the correct try/catch mechanism in a correct way (even in freestanding). That's all. No reference to how to do it :) Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10607121143n1a5fba00ueee37ecfe14a1ce1>