Boost logo

Boost :

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-17 12:56:40


--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...>
>
>
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > During stack unwinding, stopping the cancel exception is
mandatory,
> > > otherwise the whole process is going to die. For example a C++
> > exception may
> > > be on its way up when someone cancels the thread.
> >
> > But that is N6, unless I am missing something:
> >
> > ">6) Ensure cancellation points don't throw when
uncaught_exception()
> > >returns true."
>
> Note: uncaught_exception returns false in catch blocks, but catch
blocks
> normally contain the same sort of code as destructors (this is why
Herb
> doesn't like it).

I'm not sure I know what you are trying to illustrate here. I agree
with the above statement, but in our case you can at least deal with
cancellation in destructors (by turning it off or using try/catch),
while during stack unwinding we could cause the application to
terminate.

Are you against N6?

Bill Kempf


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk