Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:16 +0200 From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ Message-ID: <20060712113516.GC2162@britannica.bec.de> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10607111437h6547432fn2887348708df29a4@mail.gmail.com> References: <44B2D2DF.2000401@sh.cvut.cz> <86sll8zl9x.fsf@xps.des.no> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Joerg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060712113516.GC2162>