From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-31 12:33:51
Matt Gruenke schrieb:
>You don't see why I consider silently swallowing unhandled exceptions to
>be effectively hiding program errors? I'll try my best to support that
>claim, but I think we may have encountered a fundamental difference of
Of course I do see a problem in "swallowing unhandled exceptions to
be effectively hiding program errors". I don't think there is an issue of
What I am trying to say is simply:
Wheter the catch all is present or not will _not_ help to address this
This is a technical issue only.
What woul help is calling some (possibly user supplied) handler from the
catch clause. (Or leave it to the debugger to do something reasonably.)
But perhaps I did not understand correctly your point and we both
effectively are suggesting the very same?
About the leaking issue:
I have spent quite some time to help in the implementation of the tls part
on the windows platform (to be precise: the addition of the static
of the thread lib.) From then I know that there might be a minor issue with
this leak. I did not ever claim that this is a serious issue. I just
tried to point
out that the only usage of the catch clause at the moment is to avoid
What I see as a technical problem is how you would be able to
force a process shutdown from the context of a thread? Could you
please try to sketch how this could be done?
Could you please restate your suggestion?
Remove the catch all
Put a handler function into the catch clause
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk