Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> On 2023-03-05 03:25, Po Lu wrote:
>> I'd like to see the discussion where it was concluded that the
>> cleanup attribute is absolutely required.  It doesn't do fancy things
>> like clean up after Lisp signals under the hood, so all of the cleanup
>> can be done in portable C as well.
>
> As I recall there wasn't much discussion, unfortunately. I very vaguely recall
> that there was some worry that Emacs modules would be written in C++, and that
> they would invoke Elisp code, and that this meant it'd be hard to do the
> cleanup in portable C.
>
> One option that was discussed was to require a C++ compiler to compile
> emacs-modules.cc (i.e., to write the emacs-modules interface in C++). I expect
> this would have addressed the cleanup issue in a different way. But RMS was
> very strongly against requiring a C++ compiler.

Depending on how long ago that was, it might be worth reconsidering.
GCC has been C++ for a decade now, for instance, so C++ compilers are
likely fairly widespread.  One could make the case that using portable
C++ in addition to portable C is a more portable way to do cleanups than
GNU C cleanups.

If still undesirable, I strongly suggest at least using GNU C cleanups.
They are a decent workaround.

> You may find this patch useful:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2019-04/msg01075.html


-- 
Arsen Arsenović