Re: widl [1/7]: Output working exception handling macros. [take 2]

[Alexandre Julliard]

Dan Hipschman <dsh(a)linux.ucla.edu> writes:
> This is essentially the same as the last attempt but doesn't add a wine-
> internal function to kernel32.  It just puts the code directly in the
> widl-generated exception handler.  An alternative is to handle these access-
> based page faults for which we can continue in the signal handler (signal_i386,
> etc., in ntdll) so they never actually result in an exception being raised.
> I'm not sure if anything depends on the current behavior and didn't want to
> mess much more with the exception handling code than I had to.

You shouldn't have to do anything of the kind, there's no reason that
the generated code has to duplicate the unhandled exception filter. What
you have to do is to filter properly and not catch exceptions you are
not interested in. For cases where Windows would catch the access
violation exception, then the unhandled filter won't be called on
Windows either, that's the way it's supposed to work.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org