On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> > Does that mean you have to do exception-handling calls in every function
> > that could throw an exception? Or could the exception handling for a
> > higher-level stack frame catch the invalid pointers somehow?
>
> Well, we only have to do it in functions that do it in Win95/Win98...
> Unfortunately its a whole lot of it. We currently only do it for the ones
> where we encounter an unexpected crash.
It might be useful to have options (either compile-time or runtime) to do
it more universally, in case of errors that don't cause an unexpected
crash, yet corrupt data... (Making it optional because for performance...)
> Higher-level handlers could catch those bugs too, but if an application
> would catch lstrlenA failing, but did not expect it, we would void
> the expectations of that program.
I see. Relying on higher-level handlers would be more efficient, but would
not be correct because the wrong offending function would be reported.
Someone mentioned zero-cost exception handling in the Linux kernel; could
that be used if available?
Deven
