Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/09/06/09:55:13
Anthony Heading wrote:
> So it seems to be a pretty high hurdle to have full windows
> compatibility here, and frustratingly I don't really understand the aim
> or the purpose. For code that is going to link with Windows/msvcrt,
> using mingw is an obvious first choice, and the correctness guarantee is
> likely critical. For code that is going to link with cygwin1.dll, I'm
> having a hard time seeing where this capability is needed: the anecdotal
> evidence on this list and others over the past few years seems to agree
> with my own perception that the speed performance loss is conceded to
> solve a recondite theoretical issue for most Cygwin users. Not to say
> that the constraint isn't technically real, but it it worth killing the
> Cygwin platform for Octave et al when mingw is available for those that
> need it?
I think you're confusing the two separate issues, or maybe I didn't
transition from one to the other very clearly.
The reason we ship with SJLJ is because the Dwarf unwinder (prior to gcc
4.3) can't deal with foreign frames. You can run into this simply by
writing a Windows GUI app, since the winproc is a callback. This is
unrelated to whether you have static or shared libgcc, or exceptions
across libraries, or cygwin1.dll/msvcrt.dll. I don't know how many
people use gcc 3.x to write Win32 GUI apps that use exceptions, but
without SJLJ I think it would be near-impossible to do this. And that's
not a very far fetched or abstract idea: Cygwin's own setup.exe is a GUI
C++ app that uses exceptions, and it would fail miserably with 3.x
Dwarf2 EH. You can't just say "sorry, gcc can't be used to write
Windows GUI apps if you want to use C++ exceptions."
Brian
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -