From: Angus Leeming (angus.leeming_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-10 08:44:58
John Maddock wrote:
>> Do you plan to continue to support configurations/platforms lacking
>> exceptions (through boost::throw_exception)?
> Yes, absolutely, it should be using throw_exception rather than
> throw anyway, but I'll double check.
>> If so, what would the replacement to this be:
>> #ifdef BOOST_REGEX_NON_RECURSIVE
>> // unwind all pushed states, apart from anything else this
>> // ensures that all the states are correctly destructed
>> // not just the memory freed.
> OK that's a bug :-) Needs replacing with a non-catching version
> (since we can't unwind the stack anyway without exceptions).
If you tell me when the patch is in cvs, I'll try it out again. Once
all is working for me, I'll pass the subset of boost that we use on
to our Mac OSX, gcc 2.95 user and see if he still needs to set that
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk