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

[Andrew Haley]

On 03/31/2015 12:58 PM, Thomas Stüfe wrote:
> 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?

That's right.

> Is that gcc specific?

And glibc, and IIRC perhaps the kernel.

Andrew.