On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:26 PM, William ML Leslie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 August 2013 13:21, William ML Leslie <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Unfortunately, maintaining that kind of stack makes setting up a try > > block more expensive than usual (I think it costs nothing on the CLR), > > but it's nowhere near as expensive as saguaro stacks or keeping the > > entire stack live. > > Actually, I guess that the handler itself could decide if it wants to > set the stack pointer before proceeding or wants to run without > destroying the stack. When an unwind is necessary, we can encode that > into the handler. > Don't finally clauses interfere with this?
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
