[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNUstep Make not adding -fblocks
From: |
David Chisnall |
Subject: |
Re: GNUstep Make not adding -fblocks |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:09:29 +0000 |
On 16 Feb 2011, at 14:57, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> I can't see that in my email archive ... mybe I accidentally deleted it, or
> perhaps it was a private email to Nicola.
I thought I sent a mail to Nicola, but looking at my mail history I actually
just made a note to myself to mail Nicola when I'd done some testing, which
would explain why neither you nor he received it.
>> It seems that the configure script is testing whether exceptions work, then
>> deciding that, even though they do, it won't let you use them because it
>> doesn't like the version of GCC that you have.
>
> That may well be the case ... because we don't just need to check that we can
> throw/catch exceptions, we also need to check that we can set a handler for
> uncaught exceptions, and it may well have been a lot easier to just test for
> the version of gcc which added support for that to the runtime than to check
> to see what really happens.
>
> So, a good test for exception support would check both that the compiler
> generates exception code and that the runtime supports setting a handler for
> uncaught exceptions (and that both actually work).
> I seem to remember hacking some sort of test into the base config scripts,
> but I don't recall whether it was actually what I'd call a good one.
The test seems to be rejecting GCC 4.2: I've not had any problems with native
exceptions in any of the 4.x series - including the pop-up when apps throw an
exception that isn't caught - and I think this was also working fine in the 3.x
series when I was using that, but it's been a few years...
We also check for the availability of the uncaught exception handler in a
separate test, so it would make sense to just disable native exceptions if this
doesn't work.
David