cleanup handlers and longjmp

[Momchil Velikov]

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin v Loewis <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

>> IMHO, trying to run the cleanup handlers to the point, where setjmp
>> has been called, contradicts to the specifications, as this (or other)
>> behaviour is not left as implementation defined.

Martin> No, guaranteeing behaviour for something that is normally undefined is
Martin> an extension to the spec; it does not contradict it.

Hmm, I'd expect words like "unspecified" or "implementation defined"
to be used for the case you describe, and "undefined (behaviuor)" for
foridden stuff.

Regards,
-velco