From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-26 12:22:41
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:terekhov_at_[hidden]]
> > Sent: 26 September 2003 00:05
> > Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 1. Does SEH is an async exception?
> > No.
> Compared to C++ exceptions there are fewer guarantees regarding which
> effects have completed of a C++ statement in which a SEH exception occurs.
> (To the extent that is may be impossible to predict which statements will
> have completed.)
SEH doesn't "violate" sequence points, AFAIK.
> > > 4. How the technique described in Dave A. article helps to
> > resolve a problem
> > > discussed in items 3?
> > Dave A. should better fix the C++ std instead of hacking with MS SEH.
> Dave has done something practical about the co-existance of two conflicting
> exception handling technologies. That is more than most of us - and I for
> one find his work very useful. Dave is not responsible for the current
> situatuation. IMO If anyone should be fixing anything it should be MS.
> > > 5. What would be an ideal behavior?
> > A) WG21 mandates 2-phase EH
> What advantage does that bring?
Long story. Sorry. I can drop some links. Interested?
> > -and-
> > B) MS translates SEH to C++ exceptions "by default" (in C++ appls).
> That way lies madness!
Said... ah, well. ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk