Farid Zaripov-2 wrote:
>
>> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> The definition of the copy-ctor will come from somewhere else
>> [where?].
>
> The definition of the copy-ctor should be present in libc.
>
The C library has definitions for C++ types that are supposed to be part of
the C++ Standard Library? That just seems wrong. You must mean libC.a on AIX
[or more generally the C++ library]. In that case I don't think any symbols
should _ever_ come from there. We shouldn't be linking the C++ library at
all if we can avoid it.
None of this really explains why we don't always define all of the members
of std::exception ourselves. I guess if we absolutely cannot avoid getting
libC.a linked then we would see link errors complaining of multiply defined
symbols, but I don't see them if I modify the config header and rebuild.
Farid Zaripov-2 wrote:
>
>> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Anyways, an exception is created and copied out for the unwind. The
>> exception is then copied back onto the stack at the location
>> the exception
>> is handled. The code that actually copies the exception
>> expects the object
>> to be 8 bytes in size, but the code that created the exception only
>> allocates 4 bytes for it.
>
> The definitions of the std::exception class in STDCXX and AIX system
> headers should be the same. If no, the include/exception header file
> should have corresponding #ifdef _RWSTD_OS_AIX / #endif
>
Technically that will break binary compatibility, right? I realize the
STDCXX 'special' functions are all implemented as no-ops, but there is
probably some contrived user-code that would break because of this change.
If this change is indeed safe [I'm having trouble coming up with a testcase
that will break because of it], then why don't we create a compiler test to
determine if the exception class has has any pad so that we can pad out the
declaration of std::exception. That way we would be able to conveniently
avoid this problem in the future.
Farid Zaripov-2 wrote:
>
>> From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> So here is my problem with all of this. How is this safe? If
>> the one of the 'special' functions provided by the system has
>> some side effect, and we use that implementation, then how
>> can we safely define any of the other 'special' functions?
>>
>> That said, what is the appropriate solution? Should we just
>> pad the type out to the correct size
>
> Yes, since the stdcxx uses std::exception class just as base class
> for the other exception classes (the members of the std::exception are
> not used).
>
> Farid.
>
I think the members of std::exception provided by stdcxx are actually being
used when they are provided, but their definitions are 'dumb'.
Travis
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/19.exceptions.mt.cpp-fails-on-AIX-tf4738595.html#a13554236
Sent from the stdcxx-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
