<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Duncan,<div><br></div><div>Just one question.</div><div><br><div><div>On Jul 31, 2011, at 14:06, Duncan Sands wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Bill,<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns.<br></blockquote><br>this proposal looks great to me. Thanks for working on it. I have a few minor<br>comments, see below.<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#007a0f"><br></font></div></blockquote>snip ...</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Another comment is: rather than using a function pointer for the personality<br>function (and requiring a declaration for the personality), maybe it could<br>just be a string? After all, you don't actually do anything much with it:<br>you just dump the name into the assembler. Perhaps the same goes for catches<br>and so on: is a global really needed and not its name?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If I understand your query correctly, wouldn't the string--I am assuming symbol</div><div>here, have to be known at compile time. For example, if the personality function</div><div>was not extern Ced, and instead would be mangled by the compiler, wouldn't </div><div>the developer not know what the symbol name was to supply to the API? I guess</div><div>if this is what you mean, the API could additionally state that only C functions </div><div>(extern C), could be used, and therefore the supplied name would match.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br></div></blockquote>snip ...<br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Ciao, Duncan.<br></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Just curious</div><div><br></div><div>Garrison</div><br></div></body></html>