Re: [boost] structured exceptions for UNIXs -- the hard way

Subject: Re: [boost] structured exceptions for UNIXs -- the hard way
From: Peter Foelsche (foelsche_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-21 10:55:46

"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:4E79F4AF.8040906_at_providere-consulting.com...

> But, std::vector<jmp_buf> is not volatile sig_atomic_t,
> so the value of s_sStack is unspecified inside the
> signal handler according to 1.9 p9.

ok -- would plain C work?

volatile jmp_buf s_sStack[1024];
volatile std::size_t s_iStackPos;

or even:

volatile jmp_buf  *s_pStack;
volatile std::size_t s_iStackPos;

But -- can one longjmp into a function (the constructor) which has already 
been left?

I think such things should be left up to the developers of the compiler!
I hope the guys at G++ are listening...
Maybe one day they get the idea, that not every idea from microsoft is so 
bad.