Hi Andrew, On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 14:49 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> + dnl will always work. > >> + EXTRA_CFLAGS='-fexceptions -fnon-call-exceptions' > >> + AC_SUBST(EXTRA_CFLAGS) > > > > I am afraid you are more qualified in this subject than I am, but would > > any non-call-exceptions actually happen in JNI code? > > Maybe a division by zero trap or a null pointer trap if a programmer made > a mistake. It would be nice to get a clean stack trace if that > happened.
Ah, programmer mistake, right, people still do that in C :) > > If you want full > > coverage (for usage by a garbage collector or other asynchronous thread > > interrupt) wouldn't -fasynchronous-unwind-tables be more appropriate if > > you want full coverage? > > Possibly. I'm certain that gcj can't cope with asynchronous exceptions > and I suspect that no other VM can either, but I can use > -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. It helps if you attach to a (stuck) vm with an debugger. I don't care too much about it (some distros like fedora actually always generate full unwind tables from their system gcc anyway). I mainly wondered if there was any difference between what -fnon-call-exceptions did and -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. The coverage of the later is bigger I believe, but maybe the first does more stuff that you need for the actual exceptions? Cheers, Mark
