On 8 August 2013 13:52, David Jeske <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:26 PM, William ML Leslie > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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?
I could guess at why you ask, but it's probably better if you say it. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely may reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to deny you those rights would be illegal without prior contractual agreement. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
