From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:08:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:08:26 -0500 Received: from smtp3.cern.ch ([137.138.131.164]:26845 "EHLO smtp3.cern.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 23 Feb 2002 18:08:09 -0500 To: Pete Zaitcev Cc: Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] C exceptions in kernel In-Reply-To: <200202231011.g1NABaU10984@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <25097.1014467212@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> <20020223075002.A23666@devserv.devel.redhat.com> From: Jes Sorensen Date: 24 Feb 2002 00:07:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: Pete Zaitcev's message of "Sat, 23 Feb 2002 07:50:02 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pete Zaitcev writes: > Personally, I have no problem handling current practices. > But I may see the point of the guy with the try/catch patch. > Do not make me to defend him though. I am trying to learn > is those exceptions are actually helpful. BTW, we all know > where they come from (all of Cutler's NT is written that way), > but let it not cloud our judgement. The problem here is that when using exceptions, you stop thinking about what is going on underneath at the low level which is really not what one wants in the kernel. After all, C is just and advanced assembly interface, which is exactly why it's such a great language ;-) Jes