From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <9712141924.AA15077@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: `abort' with traceback
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 13:24:35 -0600 (CST)
Cc: dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971214132544.20627C-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 14, 97 01:31:08 pm
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk

> I would like to ask once again whether there is something magic about the 
> fake exceptions used between exceptn.S and dpmiexcp.c (last time I asked, 
> nobody answered).  I want to know if there are any dangers in inventing 
> new fake exception numbers like the patches below do.

There is nothing special about them, you may invent at will.  I doubt
anyone really understands the mess I left except for me, sorry ...  ;-/
But it shouldn't be necessary to do a hw_exception to get a traceback -
just calling setjmp with a pointer to the exception structure and then
the call the traceback print routine.  Even better yet, the raise()
routine should probably do this all for you, so someone can catch SIGABRT.

djgpp_hw_exception is really only needed if something happens inside 
a hardware interrupt that you want to schedule for main thread execution.

Sorry about the slow response, I've been on a business trip with poor
net connectivity.