--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018, redi at gcc dot wrote:

> --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot> ---
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> > For the in-place transformation in libsupc++ if something catches the old
> > failure and a new failure is thrown, is it possible?  The other way around,
> > if we would be throwing the new failure and catching the old one, doesn't
> > seem to be possible, the cxx11 failure is bigger (32 bytes compared to 16
> > bytes for the old one).
> I must be misunderstanding the scenario you're describing, because to me it
> seems like we could use 32 bytes to store a 16 byte object, but not the other
> way around.
> Anyway, I think in-place transformations are not an option. Code could have
> pointers to the data in the original exception. If we destroy it and create a
> new object in the same location we invalidate those pointers.

Yeah, I think throwing a composite object of both representation is
the easiest way here (apart from the difficulty to build that in
the first place).

Reply via email to