| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Rief <jacob(dot)rief(at)gmx(dot)at>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Writing triggers in C++ |
| Date: | 2007-02-14 17:26:55 |
| Message-ID: | 45D3465F.7080607@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 13:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Probably stack allocation doesn't matter much, as I think that would be
>> unwinded by the longjmp call. I don't know a lot about C++, but if
>> there are allocations in the data area then those would probably not be
>> freed. But it makes me wonder -- is longjmp very compatible with C++
>> exceptions at all?
>
> "C-style stack unwinding (using setjmp and longjmp from <csetjmp>) is
> incompatible with exception-handling and is best avoided." (Stroustrup,
> p. 433).
>
> Which presumably means that in practice, the interaction between these
> features is implementation-defined.
Well, as long as you don't longjmp "past" an C++ catch block, and don't
throw an C++ exception "past" an setjmp handler, there should be no
problem I think. Or at least I can't imagine how a problem could arise..
greetings, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-14 17:38:12 | Re: integer datetimes |
| Previous Message | Florian G. Pflug | 2007-02-14 17:22:06 | Re: Writing triggers in C++ |