From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,959627a08fbc77c5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,30a9bb3017fa58dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) Subject: Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Date: 1999/05/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474555370 References: <7fndu7$im4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com> <7gpsrd$qc7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >I still find the documentation of the exception handling stuff >in GCC inadequate. Well, feel free to donate improvements to the documentation, gcc always welcomes clarifications and more complete explanations. :-) I'd be happy to answer your questions about it. >One unfortunate consequence is that the GNAT exception handling has >been developed entirely independently, Well, I take exception to the word entirely. There was a mailing list called eh@cygnus.com, and we discussed tons of details and issues, from many language perspectives, including Ada and C++. This experience shaped and drove my implementation, the implementation that now exists in gcc. I would anticipate that it did the same for the Ada implementation. If true, they are closely related. >I suspect that there could be more merging, Sure, each front end can replicate it's own exception scheme[1], but this is a poor design. A better design is where the common aspects of the design are shared by the frontends as facilities in the backend. C++ and Java already share EH. Chill needs to be converted, but there is no pressing need, as not to many people use or maintain it. :-) Yes, I know you already knew that. I say it, just to nag a little, in hopes that Ada will embrace the functionality that is now there and extend it. >because to have an exception handling mechanism usable by both C++ >and Ada 95, a perfectly reasonable goal, would require careful >examination of the specifications *before* starting to implement. :-) Yes, and that was done to a large extent. The missing pieces are meant to slot into the existing design, in a natural way. 1 - Actually, my experience is that this is not possible, that is _why_ EH is now in gcc. The frontend implementation could only go so far, then things like flow, really wanted to know more and understand more.