Re: Exception Misconceptions
On Dec 11, 11:05 am, "dragan" <spambus...@prodigy.net> wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
On Dec 11, 8:57 am, "dragan" <spambus...@prodigy.net> wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
[...]
: this hypothesis is wrong, at least
for the compilers I know. You also said "An explicit mechanism
that is part of the exception machinery that calls destructors?
I don't think so." I'm not sure what you mean by that,
How convenient for you, since that IS the hypothesis.
but the compiler definitely does generate code which is
specific to exception handling, and it is that code which
calls the destructors.
I guess at this point, nothing else will do except a
side-by-side comparison analysis of the actual processes and
mechanisms of an implementation (or a few implementations).
Thanks for trying to explain it though.
The real problem I'm having, I think, is in understanding what
you mean by "an explicit mechanism". Within the compiler (and
the compiler's runtime library), there is a lot of code which
deals exclusively in exceptions: the tables generated in my
explination are only used in exception handling, the code
which walks back the stack, looking for the return addresses in
the tables is only used for exception handling, and the separate
clean-up routines called by that code are only used for
exception handling. To me, that's a "mechanism", and it is
explicitly used for exceptions. But maybe you're thinking of
something else with regards to "mechanism".
--
James Kanze