Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-18 08:49:37

From: "terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> [...]
> Mr. Butenhoff agreed with our decisions on N4
> Where can I find this newspaper, Bill?

Great link.

> "> My second question is whether the C++ catch(...),
> > which means "catch all exceptions", should be
> > allowed to catch the pthread cancelation exception.
> > On Tru64 Unix, catch(...) does catch pthread
> > cancelations.
> Yes, it should; but you should always re-"throw"
> unless you're really sure you want to break the
> entire world. I think that should ALWAYS be true
> for an anonymous catch(...), though. If you don't
> know what it is, you can't "finalize" the exception
> recovery, and you need to just clean up your own
> local context and let someone else further down
> handle it.

Something that I've been trying to say from the start. Cancellation/thread
exit is a C++ exception. Everything else simply falls out from general C++
exception handling principles. catch(...) blocks should nearly always
rethrow not because of thread cancellation, but because this is usually the
right way to handle exceptions.

Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at