Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:33:09 +0530 From: "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@acm.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ Message-ID: <ac7deb50607120603t6607ff97j4f5cf1749b6e426b@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
On 7/12/06, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > 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. so how is exception handling in C++ more efficient than setjmp()/longjmp() -in either paths? thanks -kamal > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ac7deb50607120603t6607ff97j4f5cf1749b6e426b>