Re: [boost] Re: std::expected_exception

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 10:07:49

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> [...]
>> OK. You want to use an exception specification that does not contain
>> thread_cancel_request as "syntactic sugar" for disable_cancelation.
>> Why is ES better than RAII in this context?
>
> ES should have no runtime cost other than some extra info for the
> search phase. OTOH, enable/disable burns cycles (keystrokes aside
> for a moment) no matter whether you hit some cancelation point
> *with cancel request pending* or not. Well, there's a downside...
> of course. It is just an additional/alternative tool, so to speak.

I'm not seeing the burned cycles (++fs:[8] looks pretty fast) but I may be
missing and/or misunderstanding something. :-)

throw() specs have a "required stack frame" cost.