Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look

From	Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid>
Subject	Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
References	(8 earlier) <uutAv.140204$L6.7454@fx08.iad> <lrn7ft$vsh$2@adenine.netfront.net> <I6NDv.173094$DV4.53284@fx05.iad> <lrpv7r$4d9$1@adenine.netfront.net> <e2f5a5e9-f16d-4e8f-93f0-8d1433d9a024@googlegroups.com>
Date	2014-08-05 16:20 +0200
Message-ID	<tq57bb-rd4.ln1@news.rtij.nl> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 05:53:17 -0700, Öö Tiib wrote:

> On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 09:57:01 UTC+3, Juha Nieminen  wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> >>> I still use sigsetjmp/siglongjmp in C++ applications when useful.
>> >>
>> >>Sure, if you want to bypass destructors...
>> > 
>> >  Obviously. Duh, that's something anyone who chooses to use
>> >  setjmp/longjmp
>> > needs to be aware of.
>> > 
>> >  The applications which use sigsetjmp/siglongjmp tend to create
>> >  long-lived
>> > objects using new and delete, and control the allocation and
>> > deallocation carefully.
>> 
>> How about not using those functions at all? The vast majority of people
>> manage just fine without them.
> 
> There may be is C library used that uses those and no budget to invest
> into refactoring or translating that library to C++.

I would do this only if I really, really have to. And I would think hard 
and long about encapsulating this stuff so it is safe to use from 
"normal" C++.

M4

Thread

The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-16 08:06 -0700
  Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-16 16:12 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-18 09:39 -0700
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-19 03:48 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-24 05:36 +0000
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 10:08 -0500
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2014-07-24 18:00 +0200
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 17:36 +0100
          Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 12:28 -0500
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-07-24 23:50 +0200
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-25 05:36 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-07-25 18:18 +0000
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:29 +0100
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:45 +0100
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-07-25 14:05 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-04 05:59 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-04 14:52 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-05 06:57 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 05:53 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid> - 2014-08-05 16:20 +0200
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 16:58 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:04 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-05 14:27 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:06 +0000
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2014-07-28 21:01 +0200
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-03 16:22 -0700

csiph-web