From: Albert Chou <achou@...>
Date: 2004-07-28T08:35:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Anyone tried compiling Ruby with c++?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C47431.D0270D3A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe Ch (http://www.softintegration.com/), being an C/C++ interpreter,
supports C++ exceptions?

Al
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Asfand Yar Qazi [mailto:im_not_giving_it_here@i_hate_spam.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:07 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Anyone tried compiling Ruby with c++?

Paul Brannan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 08:00:34PM +0900, Asfand Yar Qazi wrote:
>=20
>>No, I didn't say "porting Ruby to C++", I said "compiling Ruby=20
>>with C++."
>>
>>I think this would solve the problem of longjmping out of C++=20
>>functions (due to throwing Ruby exceptions) and not having=20
>>destructors of stack objects declared in those C++ functions.  Or=20
>>am I wrong?
>=20
>=20
> Unless I misunderstand you: the longjmp function is part of the C++
> standard (since the C++ standard library includes the C89 standard
> library).  Recompiling Ruby with a C++ compiler will not eliminate the
> calls to longjmp.  The C++ standard is very clear that any call to
> longjmp that jumps over the desctruction of an automatic object will
> result in undefined behavior, irrespective of whether that code was
> compiled with a C or a C++ compiler.

Ahh... that's what I didn't know.

>=20
> It would be possible to modify Ruby to use C++ exceptions, but this
> would not be a small change (Ruby wraps calls to longjmp in macros,
but
> it's not just a matter of changing the macros, since longjmp and
> exceptions use a different syntax), and I don't know how well C++
> exceptions would play with Ruby's threads.

I wish there was a scripting language that did just that... I am=20
yearning for a scripting language that has support for C++=20
exceptions out-of-the-box...

>=20
> Also, C++ has much stricter typing than C, and I suspect that much of
> the Ruby source would fail to compiler under a C++ compiler without
> modification.

I thought of that too.

>=20
> Paul
>=20
>=20
>=20

thanks for the reply.



--
http://www.it-is-truth.org/

------_=_NextPart_001_01C47431.D0270D3A--