libverbose_terminate, pass 1 of N

[Nathan Myers]

On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 05:34:16PM -0500, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:43:40PM -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> > Have we established that a verbose-termination-by-default would not
> > be conformant?  Is there some other reason not to want it as the
> > default?
> 
> Verbose termination calls fprintf, which can't be used in a freestanding
> environment.  If -ffreestanding (or whatever it is) were to cause a macro
> to be defined, then I see no reason why we couldn't [act accordingly]
> ...
> The only note I can find in the standard is "default terminate() calls
> abort," which doesn't seem to preclude also doing other actions.

I missed the "free-standing" angle.

In a free-standing implementation, it is users who can't assume fprintf 
is there.  Implementers can use anything they choose to provide.  Still, 
fprintf seems pretty heavy-weight when ::write would suffice.  Since we
provide source, actual users of free-standing Gcc can replace our 
terminate handler with anything they like, so ISTM we don't really have 
to do anything for them but stick a comment in the code.

Nathan Myers
ncm-nospam@cantrip.org