Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "thunk_".
Did you mean:
thunk
2012 Mar 23
0
[LLVMdev] Catching C++ exceptions, cleaning up, rethrowing
On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
> Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like 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://ww...
2012 Mar 23
2
[LLVMdev] Catching C++ exceptions, cleaning up, rethrowing
...C++ implementation "know" to run the d'tors for me since the C++ objects that were created on the stack were created by JIT'd code, first via alloca to allocate StructTypes of the right size (char[sizeof(T)]) then calling a thunk of the form:
>
> extern "C" void 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 destructor...
2011 Jan 21
0
Wine release 1.3.12
...ddraw: COM cleanup for the IDirectDraw3 iface.
ddraw: COM cleanup for the IDirectDraw4 iface.
ddraw: COM cleanup for the IDirectDraw7 iface.
explorerframe: COM cleanup for the IClassFactory iface.
compobj.dll16: COM cleanup for the IMalloc16 iface.
ddraw: Drop "Thunk_" from the names of the IDirect3DDevice methods.
ddraw: Drop "Thunk_" from the names of the IDirect3DDevice2 methods.
ddraw: Drop "Thunk_" from the names of the IDirect3DDevice3 methods.
ole2.dll16: Add missing ILockBytes::Stat to the vtbl initialisation....
2012 Mar 23
2
[LLVMdev] Catching C++ exceptions, cleaning up, rethrowing
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
>
>> Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like 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 n...