3 ms·
I'm not familiar enough with the darker corners of C++ implementations to say, but I'd guess not. From what the paper describes it seems table-based exception h
by aw1621107 7y ago
I'm not familiar enough with the darker corners of C++ implementations to say, but I'd guess not. From what the paper describes it seems table-based exception handling is deeply ingrained into the Itanium ABI so any significant change would be an ABI break, which would make said change more difficult to spread.
- asveikau 7y agoI am not sure if all implementers made the same choices, but for example I believe Microsoft concluded that table-based EH is always better and made not only their IA64 ABI but also their amd64 ABI use it. They keep 32-bit x86 at an older implementation for compatibility reasons, but any ABI introduced later gets the new thing.
- aw1621107 7y agoWait, is the Itanium ABI not the amd64 ABI? I thought that the 64-bit x86 ABI was called the Itanium ABI despite Itanium having gone kaput. Did Microsoft release a paper with that conclusion? I'd be curious to read more about their reasoning.
- asveikau 7y agoHmm, I missed the C++ism for this term. Googling around: > Although it was initially developed for the Itanium architecture, it is not platform-specific and can be layered portably on top of an arbitrary C ABI. My mistake, my comment is mostly rubbish then.
- aw1621107 7y agoI didn't realize it was a C++-specific thing, to be honest. I should probably try for more generic wording in the future.