On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 09:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please > > > with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is: > > > - in general, > > > - as implemented in the 3.4 series and > > > - as implemented in the 4.0 series. > > > > > > At work we're using 3.4 and we have managed to shoot our foot of with > > > this issue :-(, google gives a lot of hits on the issue but it is a bit > > > hard to get the current impl. status for 3.4. Which in turn makes it > > > hard to decide on how to bandage our foot. > > > > Could you provide a link to a description of the particular > > problem? I looked around, and all I could find was > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111548 > > > > I suppose the controversial part is that you're using > > pthread_cancel, which is somewhat frowned upon as > > inherently unsafe. > > There is a whole mailing list about this: > http://www.codesourcery.com/archives/c++-pthreads/threads.html > > This has to be done correctly with the C++ standard and POSIX people and > the GCC people will be involved but not on the GCC list as it just gets > in the way.
Yes, I'm aware of the list. My question was what the current behaviour of the various gcc versions is. And if gcc supports the various work around mentiod. Like explicity configuring the behavour of the 'catch (...)' etc.. Peter Zijlstra
