From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-27 11:59:53
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Slawomir Lisznianski" <slisznianski_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:51:44 -0400, "David Abrahams"
>> <dave_at_[hidden]> said:
>>> A user-replaceable handler can't dump core?
>> Not with the complete stack trace of where the exception originated.
> Neither can any other mechanism, portably across all implementations,
> even if you only restrict it to conforming ones. Does unexpected do
> the right thing on a wide range of compilers? It won't work on MSVC,
> for example.
Why are we having this discussion at all? :-)
I thought that it was "common knowledge" that aborting the process when an
exception escapes the thread procedure is better than eating the exception
and silently killing the thread. The Sun folks were convinced of that,
having tried the catch(...) approach first.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk