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

[Thomas Stüfe]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
Interesting, can you catch signals with C++ try/catch? Is that gcc specific?

..Thomas


> Andrew.
>
>