[LLVMdev] x86 unwind support[MESSAGE NOT SCANNED]

[Maurice Gittens]

Hi,

> Maybe there does exist a programming language that never calls (or is
> > called by) programs in other programming languages and never runs in
> > an environment where one of its threads may be terminated.  In that
> > case, interoperability of generated code doesn't matter.  In the
> > heterogeneous world of the contemporary OS I'm not sure if that's a
> > common case.
> The level of inter-language interoperability you are talking about is
> frankly next to impossible.
> Java doesn't allow threads to be terminated precisely because of the
> sort of problems it causes.
>

I am happy with the  LLVM design choices here. You do not seem to be.

If _you_ wan't different semantics why not contribute optional support for
your semantics
without taking away what is there now?

I doubt that any one would object to optional support for an
additional way to deal with invoke if you were to supply one appropriately.

Maurice



>
> >
> > Andrew.
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090720/ee609155/attachment.html>