Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-29 12:46:19

Joaquín Mª López Muñoz wrote:
> After following the discussion, it is not at all clear to me which
> approach
> should I take to handle BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS :)
> Finally I rewrote the try-catch blocks of my indexed_set library to
> use scope guards, which will work in any situation. Admittedly, it'll
> add some runtime penalty, but I don't think it is significant.

On systems without exceptions, all calls are effectively throw()
BUT without compiler-injected (due to the current *misguided* Std
C++ rules with respect to ES) catch(...) handlers. This relieves
the "pressure" put on the optimizers (not to optimize; things like
"MEMORY ACCESS ORDER"[1] aside for a moment) and you can expect
NOT to pay a penalty due to scope guard objects (all those refs
and so forth), AFAICS.


    (Subject: Re: std0X::expected_exception<T>() [repost])

(Subject: Re: std0X::expected_exception<T>())

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