From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:51:17 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive
Message-ID: <20060425035117.GB25952@submarine>
References: <444D3701.50303@lanl.gov> <20060425031523.N21356@mrwint.cisco.com>
	<20060425022329.GF25096@submarine>
	<20060425033704.O21356@mrwint.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060425033704.O21356@mrwint.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 45bac470-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:37:04AM +0100, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> >   Well, this is to unwind trough exceptions through the C stack:
>
> There is no c++ code here,  last I looked there is no c++ in dietlibc.

  That's the beauty of a shared library -- you never know who might
  end up calling you, and if you have routines which do call back --
  you never know what awaits you there as well. So, these days
  for a perfectly law-abiding pureC shared library which defines
  bar() (from my example) there must be a .eh_frame section to
  make C++ applications (the ones calling bar() by the virtue of
  dynamic linking) feel better.

> Well I always find the .comment sections annoying,  lots of junk saying
> which version of gcc compiled a given module...

  Well, at least for those you can use mcs(1) but .eh_frame was made
  mandatory by the AMD64 ABI.

Thanks,
Roman.