On Friday 16 May 2003 12:05 am, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On May 16, 2003 12:00 am, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
nope. 'cause it's illegal to have a break/continue hanging around without something to break/continue out of. But we could have to have "__TYPED_TRY" "__ACHEY_BREAKEY_TYPED_TRY" macros :(
Greg,
I think we're barking up the wrong tree. Vast majority of Windows apps nowadays are C++. Of the few that are C-only, most will compile with a C++ compiler. In other words, if we find a C++ solution for the SEH problem, we would have covered probably more than 95% of apps. Not perfect, but good enough.
If I understand you guys correctly, the problem should be solvable in C++. Let's go for the low hanging fruit first, it makes good sense.
unfortunately, this doesn't help with MIDL-generated code, which is my primary motivation here...
My concern, aside from that it won't work without all these gcc-isms, is that by creating a similar syntax to __try and friends, which only implement some of the real semantics of these constructs, we create a "false" sense of security. Code utilizing these might compile, and then yield some horrible and confusing result (of course, that's kind of what we have now, anyhow, with dummy Rpc EH macros)...
goto is a good problem to mention, because unlike break/continue, if they did a goto out of a try-block, it would compile, but fail to pop the exception record or run finally... not sure if there is some way to prevent that.