On 04/16/2014 12:01 AM, John Marino wrote: > On 4/16/2014 03:22, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Douglas B Rupp <r...@adacore.com> wrote: >>> On 04/14/2014 02:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> >>> No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you >>> concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name been chosen to >>> be more unique? >> >> No, I won't concede that. The unwind.h file provides the interface >> for the C++ exception handling interface >> (http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html). That interface >> is implemented by several different compilers, not just GCC. > > The header can provide the exact same interface with a different, better > file name. > > He's basically asking, "If you had it to do all over again, would you > still call it unwind.h or would you call it something different?" > > It's just an academic discussion because answering yes or no changes > nothing, but I think the majority of the people would give it a > different file name if they could do it all over again. It's not a big > concession.
No, I don't think the majority would. Because GCC would then be already incompatible with the Intel compiler from which this interface was drawn, way back when the ia64 support was added to GCC and we redesigned GCC's exception handling. r~
