------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-31 10:54 ------- > I'll admit that I don't understand the problem, at least on > Sparc. There is an ABI which defines what the C stack looks > like; the C++ stack is, in fact, identical. Walking back the > stack is trivial. The only thing you need the tables for is for > finding destructor or handler code.
This indeed may be true on SPARC. > So you won't find them in the C code which doesn't have the tables; that's no > problem, because I'm pretty sure that the C code doesn't have any > destructors, nor any exception handlers. Sure, but GCC nevertheless needs unwind info describing that there is no table and how to further unwind. > Is there something linked with portability which precludes this > approach. (I know that the stack walkback code is NOT portable. > But I would have thought that this was true with or without the > tables.) The exception propagation mechanism is generic and doesn't special-case SPARC at the moment. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot | |org Component|c++ |target http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19620