Subject: Re: [boost] [context] new version - support for Win64
From: Oliver Kowalke (k-oli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-15 15:53:50
Am 15.01.2011 21:17, schrieb vicente.botet:
>>> * How exceptions are propagated when calling to jump_to()?
>> context::jump_to() doesn't throw. as noted in the docu the code jumped
>> into via context::jump_to() must not throw
> I don't see it on the reference part. Could you point me where it is documented?
In the docu the interface of boost::context is described (reference
part) - to be more correct context::jump_to() throws if the context is
> So if exceptions can not be propagated between contexts, how the user does with exceptions?
maybe prevent exceptions or catch and log - the same as for threads
>>> * Why do you need a ::create function?
>> to have a named ctor - default ctor creates an 'not_a_context'. This is
>> required by the move semantics
> This don't answer my question. Why you don't provide a constructor with the same parameters ::create has?
for destinct/differentiate between default ctor which creates a
'not-a-context' and a context to which can be jumped to created by the
named ctor context::create(). it is a question of task. I want to
express the difference more explicit.
>>> * Could you clarify your sentence "Frame-unwind-tables instead of setjmp/longjmp based exception handling must be used in order to catch exception inside called function."
>> for instance gcc supports both strategies how exceptions are
>> modelled/propagated. calling ::longjmp() is equivalent to throw
>> statement. Functions written in C++ will have unwind information by default.
> And how this translates to the user? Do the user needs to do someting specific?
do not invoke a compiler argument which enables sj/lj-exception model
>>> * Performances comparison between fiber and fcontext will be welcome
>> do refer to boost.fiber? boost.fiber uses boost.context internally.
>> fcontext is an implementation detail of boost.context.
>> I don't understand the need for comparing it.
> No I mean comparaison between yous specific implementation with assembler and the use of Windows Fibers to implement Boost.Context. That is the same kind of comparison you did for UNIX.
the code for testing the performance is only provided for UNIX - it is
not ported to Windows
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk