Boost logo

Boost :

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-11 10:11:59

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > throw() specs have a "required stack frame" cost.
> It might be better to burden the callers, I think. Consider:

That way, if all your code is throw()-nothing (and you don't have
any try/catch... why would you?), you'll basically get "plain old
C quality" executable without ANY exception handling related costs
whatsoever. So, your assertion that throw() specs (in the two-phase
EH world without unwinding on ES violations) have a "required stack
frame" cost is probably false... unless I am just missing and/or
misunderstanding something, of course.


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