On Mon, 09 May 2005 15:04:40 +0200, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
> I wonder though: if stack-based SEH is patented by Borland, does it mean
> that "VC++ and most other PC compilers" pay to Borland?
The GNU EH ABI is table-based not stack based, I guess that's one reason
why (it's also faster).
thanks -
>> Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>> >Because it's patented by Borland?
>>
>> Do you have any reference to the patent? It looks to me like it is easy
>> to by-pass by using different key words and than the user can Just
>> define them to the MS ones.
>
>US Patent #5,628,016, Kukol, May 6, 1997. And you
On Monday 09 May 2005 10:00, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >"Jonathan Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Why doesnt someone just implement the microsoft SEH keywords and
> >> extentions into GCC like it should be?
>
> Do you have any knowledge of GCC, to be able to do it, or help me do it?
The code ex
On Monday 09 May 2005 11:29, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Mon, 09 May 2005 07:41:46 +, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> > As for the portability issue, why not an autoconf test? Perhaps the
> > answer is "because there are still people foolish enough to run distro's
> > other than Gentoo." If so, then wh
On Mon, 09 May 2005 07:41:46 +, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> As for the portability issue, why not an autoconf test? Perhaps the answer
> is
> "because there are still people foolish enough to run distro's other than
> Gentoo." If so, then why not an autoconf test and a run-time test?
Hurra
"Jonathan Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why doesnt someone just implement the microsoft SEH keywords and extentions
into GCC like it should be?
Do you have any knowledge of GCC, to be able to do it, or help me do it?
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Because it's patented by Borland?
Do you
"Jonathan Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why doesnt someone just implement the microsoft SEH keywords and extentions
> into GCC like it should be?
Because it's patented by Borland?
> Same with anything else microsoft that WINE or ReactOS needs (e.g.
> _declspec(thread) support)
We can e
Why doesnt someone just implement the microsoft SEH keywords and extentions
into GCC like it should be?
Same with anything else microsoft that WINE or ReactOS needs (e.g.
_declspec(thread) support)
On Friday 06 May 2005 18:51, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 16:23 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > They clearly won't work as is, but if your question is whether it's
> > possible to use attribute((cleanup)), then yes you could probably use
> > that to make the current macros more co
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 16:23 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> They clearly won't work as is, but if your question is whether it's
> possible to use attribute((cleanup)), then yes you could probably use
> that to make the current macros more compatible. Obviously that would
> be only as an option
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> I got bored and took a stab at doing proper SEH macros using some GCC
> extensions I found. These are rather rough, unfinished definitions, and
> they aren't tested at all but do they look OK?
They clearly won't work as is, but if your q
11 matches
Mail list logo
