From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-13 13:26:48
At 07:34 AM 2/13/2002, John Maddock wrote:
>>It seems to me that just adding BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS isn't enough. There
>>needs to be some documentation that explains:
>> * Why it is there (EmbeddedC++).
>> * That boost libraries are not required to support it.
>> * For boost libraries that do wish to support it, what are they
>>supposed to do when they detect an error that is documented as throwing
>>exception? Do all such errors become undefined behavior in Embedded
>>C++? (I'm sorry - I've never used Embedded C++ so don't know what they
>>about errors which normally would be reported via exception.)
>Point taken, for the regex code it uses an "always on" assertion - so it
>aborts if there is some critical failure - there isn't much else it can
>really (and this was the behaviour I was asked for in this case). I've
>added some more docs to the config entry for that macro:
>"The compiler does not support exception handling (this setting is
>typically required by many C++ compilers for embedded platforms). Note
>there is no requirement for boost libraries to honor this configuration
>setting - indeed doing so may be impossible in some cases. Those
>that do honor this will typically abort if a critical error occurs - you
>have been warned!"
Good. That makes it clearer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk