[CLN-list] Overriding read_number_bad_syntax on OS X

[Ron Garret]

On May 12, 2007, at 12:11 PM, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> When CLN was written, exceptions were not a mature specification nor
>>> technology: rethrowing an exception was undefined behaviour, and
>>> g++ created huge code when used without "-fno-exceptions". This  
>>> has  probably
>>> changed meanwhile...
>> OK, but why hard-code a call to exit instead of (say) a user-  
>> specifiable callback or something like that?
>> Is cln still being actively maintained?  Can I submit a patch?
>
>
> Sure you can!

Where do I send them?

> Frankly, I would much prefer throwing an exception than the present  
> form of "user specifialble callback".
>

Actually, the present form is not even a user-specifiable callback,  
it's  a hard-coded call to exit.

> However, I am very curious about the overhead incurred by compiling  
> CLN without -fno-exceptions. If that really turns out to be  
> negligible, I am all for throwing exceptions as that is so much  
> more convenient. I suggest to start looking for the destructor  
> overhead.

You don't need to compile the whole thing with exceptions enabled,  
only the parser.  (And in fact, I think you don't even have to  
compile the parser with exceptions enabled, just the error  
functions.  That's basically what I did on Linux by "overriding"  
their definitions and it seemed to work OK.  Of course, I never  
stress-tested it for memory leaks.

Let me do some experiments and I'll report back.

rg