Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-28 03:03:51

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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"...

Probably because I lack some of that "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.

I think the main question here is just _how_ the process should be
aborted, after all. On platforms where leaking the exception causes
a process abort, I have no objection to doing so.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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