RFR(s): 8076185: Provide SafeFetchX implementation for zero

[Andrew Haley]

On 31/03/15 09:38, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> We also should accept that my SafeFetch implementation will be slower than
> the standard one using inline assembly, because setjmp() does a lot of
> stores. As far as I can see now, we do not use SafeFetch extensivly
> anywhere, so this should be ok, but something to keep in mind.

Sure.  On most GNU/Linux targets I know about we can do much better than
this POSIXly portable implementation by using a thread-local variable and
C++ catch/throw, but (as you say)n there's probably no need.

Andrew.