On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 02:57:50PM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Dan Hipschman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In this revision, I leave setting permissions on page faults to the > > unhandled exception filter and simply ignore page faults on execution > > access (read access exceptions should be caught since they translate > > into bad stub data, but these don't pose a problem anyway). I also > > fixed a bug regarding how the mask field of __widl_except_frame was > > set. > > There's no reason to ignore execute access errors, those are bugs > too. You are still not filtering the exception properly though, the > condition checking has to be done directly in the handler, you can't > longjmp back to the code and then re-raise the exception. That's doubly > true for the finally handling. This means you have to generate different > handlers for the different exception conditions.
That's basically what I did in the original patch using __TRY/__EXCEPT/__FINALLY. You told me to do this in a more straightforward way: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-November/060515.html which I took to mean trying to implement the finally block as an actual block in the local scope, instead of a function (which is a bit of a pain). I don't see any way to execute the finally block in the local scope without rethrowing exceptions, or using GCC's nested functions. The except condition is easier to put into a handler since the only conditions WIDL generates are pretty simple. Should I go back to the original patch? How did you want it different?
