julliard at winehq.org
Thu May 1 17:08:51 CDT 2003
"Gregory M. Turner" <gmturner007 at ameritech.net> writes:
> Or, do you say this because there would be no __wine_pop_frame if they
> returned? Couldn't we overwrite the return address pointer on the stack and
> then (if & when it is used) jump to the real return address after neccesary
> clean-up's...? Does __FINALLY suffer from this problem?
Yes, of course the existing macros have the same problem; the thing is
that with the current macros you need to fix the code anyway, so you
can fix the other problems too and make sure you work within the
limitations of the macros. The problem with having more compatible
macros is that the code will compile just fine, but in many cases will
break at run time, and you'd need to go through all the code manually
to find the problematic spots.
julliard at winehq.com
More information about the wine-devel