Re: performance of exception handling

> Just echoing what David said really, but: if the libgcc changes > are expected to be portable beyond glibc, then the existence of > an alternative option for glibc shouldn't block the libgcc changes. > The two approaches aren't be mutually exclusive and each approach > would achieve something tha

Re: performance of exception handling

> Some people use exceptions to propagate "low memory" up which > made me increase the size of the EH emergency pool (which is > used when malloc cannot even allocate the EH data itself) ... > > So yes, people care. There absolutely has to be a path in > unwinding that allocates no (as little as

Re: performance of exception handling

> Not all GCC/G++ targets are GNU/Linux and use GLIBC. A duplicate > implementation in GLIBC creates its own set of advantages and > disadvantages. so what should I do now? Should I try to move the lookup into GLIBC? Or handled it within libgcc, as I had originally proposed? Or give up due to the

Re: performance of exception handling

> Link: > > I'm not sure if your summary is correct. I was referring to Section 3.2, where Herb says: "We must remove all technical reasons for a C++ project to disable exception handling (e.g., by compiler switch) or ban use of exceptions, in all or part of their proje

performance of exception handling

Hi, I want to improve the performance of C++ exception handling, and I would like to get some feedback on how to tackle that. Currently, exception handling scales poorly due to global mutexes when throwing. This can be seen with a small demo script here: https://repl.it/repls/DeliriousPrivateProf