search for: destructors

Hi, I can't install a program and I think that the problem is the keyboard. The log file is above. Could anyoune help me? Thanks, Savio Ramos fixme:keyboard:X11DRV_KEYBOARD_DetectLayout Your keyboard layout was not found! Using closest match instead (Brazilian ABNT-2 keyboard layout) for scancode mapping. Please define your layout in windows/x11drv/keyboard.c and submit them to us for

On 25 November 2010 11:03, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > I don't understand what you are saying.  Cleanups (e.g. destructors) Hi Duncan, Cleanup landing pads normally call destructors, but they're not a destructor themselves. I'm simply saying that compiler generated blocks (such as cleanups) should never depend on user variables. But I get what you're saying. If a cleanup area calls a destructor, and dest...

Hi Renato, >> I don't understand what you are saying. Cleanups (e.g. destructors) > > Hi Duncan, > > Cleanup landing pads normally call destructors, but they're not a > destructor themselves. I'm simply saying that compiler generated > blocks (such as cleanups) should never depend on user variables. I see what you are saying now. Unfortunately optimi...

Hy, there! I've recently entered into the swinows-emulating world and it's been quite amusing. I'm now running Kazaa Lite in my Linux box. That's very cool... I'm now trying to install an engineering software called ICEMCFD in my PC. This software is intended for PCs running windoze NT. I'm finding problems while installing this software. Whenever trying to run

...ing now.  Unfortunately optimizations such as > inlining can result in code ending up in cleanup landing pads. This is the part that escapes me... but I haven't spent too much time thinking about inlining EH information yet. > OK :)  Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors > when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws > an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the > Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit.  This > may be caught by an enclosing handler. That's a neat model....

...ike this: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *that = 0; > try { > that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } catch (...) { > that->~item(); > } > } No I wouldn't since destructors should never throw exceptions: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/exceptions.html#faq-17.9 > Now the point I was making is that all of the locally scoped variables will have their d'tors called automatically by the unwinding mechanism. So something like this: > > void foo() { &...

Hi Renato, >> OK :) Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors >> when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws >> an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the >> Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit. This >> may be caught by an enclosing handler. > >...

...oid thunk_item_M_new( void *addr ) { > new( addr ) item; > } > > where "addr" is the address returned by alloca? To me, it would seem that if you're right, that I shouldn't need any try/catch at all. > > When I put tracer print statements in my class's destructors, I can see that they are called only if I explicitly call them via JIT'd code that calls the relevant thunk, e.g.: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *const that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } > &...

...at it's possible for a dispatch block to become unreachable from its landing pad. If that block is then deleted, we'd lose information about what's supposed to unwind there. This could happen if, e.g., someone had a noreturn destructor. In languages that usefully allow throws from EH destructors (i.e. Ada) I can imagine uses for this, and regardless it's well-formed code that shouldn't cause the world to explode. The way I understood Duncan's description of the Ada model, even an unconditionally throwing Ada constructor isn't exactly noreturn - or rather, every destructor...

Hi! We?ve recently come across an example where a package (minqa) creates an Rcpp Function object in a static variable. This causes R_ReleaseObject to be called by the destructor at a very late point in time - as part of the system exit function: static Function cf("c"); I?m wondering if that is considered to be ?safe?? Is the R engine supposed to stay in a state where calls to API

On Tuesday, 27 June 2017 13:55:57 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > We permit the following constructs in libguestfs code: > > if (guestfs_some_call (g) == -1) { > fprintf (stderr, "failed: error is %s\n", guestfs_last_error (g)); > } > > and: > > guestfs_push_error_handler (g, NULL, NULL); > guestfs_some_call (g); >

...;d like to eliminate the use of landing pads for destructing locals. Instead the LSDA would encode the pc liveness ranges of local objects, their location in the stack frame, and their destructor functions. Then the new personality function would iterator through the LSDA and call the appropriate destructors. The upshot is that functions will be smaller (no landing pad code) and there would be no landing pads in the bitcode (except for catch clauses). This is better aligned with the "zero cost" (if not used) exception model then what we currently have. > > There are a number of detai...

Hi, I am writing C++ functions that are to be called via .Call() interface. I'd been using error() (from R.h) to return to R if there is an error, but then I realized that this might be not safe as supposedly error() doesn't throw an exception and therefore some destructors do not get called and some memory may leak. Here is a simple example extern "C" void foo() { string str = "hello"; error("message"); } The memory allocated for str is leaked. Did anyone think about this and find a way to work around the problem? Thanks,...

Hi, To write a "constructor" for an S4 object, you make an initialize method which will be called by new. But how would I make a "destructor" method to be called when the S4 object is garbage collected? I'm looking at reg.finalizer, but I'm not sure how to make that work for an S4 object. I want to write a destructor because my S4 object's initialize method

...at it's possible for a dispatch block to become unreachable from its landing pad. If that block is then deleted, we'd lose information about what's supposed to unwind there. This could happen if, e.g., someone had a noreturn destructor. In languages that usefully allow throws from EH destructors (i.e. Ada) I can imagine uses for this, and regardless it's well-formed code that shouldn't cause the world to explode. > The way I understood Duncan's description of the Ada model, even an > unconditionally throwing Ada constructor isn't exactly noreturn - or > rather, e...

Hi, I try to install visio 2002 (or 2000) with wine. All the dll's are loaded apparently, some screen pops up, and then it's over. I see these messages in debug : fixme:msvcrt:MSVCRT_signal (8 0x6030cd09):stub fixme:accel:CreateAcceleratorTableA should check that the accelerator descriptions are valid, return NULL and SetLastError() if not. fixme:font:WineEngCreateFontInstance just using

When I was preparing Xen''s netback driver for upstream one of the things I removed was the zero-copy guest transmit (i.e. netback receive) support. In this mode guest data pages ("foreign pages") were mapped into the backend domain (using Xen grant-table functionality) and placed into the skb''s paged frag list (skb_shinfo(skb)->frags, I hope I am using the right

...;C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { >> item *that = 0; >> try { >> that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); >> that->~item(); >> } catch (...) { >> that->~item(); >> } >> } > > No I wouldn't since destructors should never throw exceptions: You're missing the point. >> Now the point I was making is that all of the locally scoped variables will have their d'tors called automatically by the unwinding mechanism. So something like this: >> >> void foo() { >> try { >&gt...

Hi all, My name is Giuliano and I write from Italy. I contact the list because I have a problem with wine and I don't know the cause. I use wine version 20011108-5, freetype 1.3.1 and XFree4.0.2. I must use a Access application (Office2000) under Linux and I I have thought to wine. My problem is that when I try to install the runtime for access with: wine --winver win2000 setup.exe I

...ed to dominate XYZ. > > Hi Duncan, > > I don't see how you can have dominance between a normal block and a > cleanup block. Clean-up landing pads should never use user code (since > they don't exist in userland). I don't understand what you are saying. Cleanups (e.g. destructors) can execute arbitrary user code, access arbitrary local variables etc. For example, you can pass the address of a local variable to a class which reads that value of that variable in a destructor etc. Note also that LLVM is not just used by C++, it is also used by Ada which makes huge (and subtle...