21 Sep
2011
21 Sep
'11
2:55 p.m.
"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4E79F4AF.8040906@providere-consulting.com...
But, std::vector<jmp_buf> is not volatile sig_atomic_t, so the value of s_sStack is unspecified inside the signal handler according to 1.9 p9.
ok -- would plain C work? volatile jmp_buf s_sStack[1024]; volatile std::size_t s_iStackPos; or even: volatile jmp_buf *s_pStack; volatile std::size_t s_iStackPos; But -- can one longjmp into a function (the constructor) which has already been left? I think such things should be left up to the developers of the compiler! I hope the guys at G++ are listening... Maybe one day they get the idea, that not every idea from microsoft is so bad.