On 11/18/2015 06:22 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
The EH scheme that we had been using for TM / libitm doesn't work
properly. We fail to handle throwing exceptions whose constructors may
throw themselves. We also do not clean up properly in all situations
when a transactions abort while being in th
On 11/19/2015 10:33 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 11:18 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 09:35 -0600, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Tested using the libitm testsuite on x86_64-linux.
Tested on powerpc64le-linux with no regressions and I confirmed
the new eh-5.C test
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 11:18 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 09:35 -0600, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Tested using the libitm testsuite on x86_64-linux.
>
> Tested on powerpc64le-linux with no regressions and I confirmed
> the new eh-5.C test case passes.
Thanks. Then I'll commi
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 09:35 -0600, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Tested using the libitm testsuite on x86_64-linux.
Tested on powerpc64le-linux with no regressions and I confirmed
the new eh-5.C test case passes.
Peter
On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 09:35 -0600, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> The EH scheme that we had been using for TM / libitm doesn't work
> properly. We fail to handle throwing exceptions whose constructors may
> throw themselves. We also do not clean up properly in all situations
> when a transactions abort
The EH scheme that we had been using for TM / libitm doesn't work
properly. We fail to handle throwing exceptions whose constructors may
throw themselves. We also do not clean up properly in all situations
when a transactions abort while being in the process of throwing an
exception.
This patch s
