Boost logo

Boost :

From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-23 19:31:23

Hugh Wimberly wrote:
> I could be way off base here, but I assumed the question related to the use
> of try/catch blocks, which are very expensive

What is that claim based on?
The old myth saying exceptions are slower than return values, while it's
actually the opposite?

> compared to unmanaged code.

What is that supposed to mean?
C++ has no notion of managed/unmanaged code.

Even when considering the Microsoft extensions, I still don't see what
exceptions have to do with managed code. (since you compare exceptions
to "unmanaged" code that must mean you must consider those "managed")

> The divide by zero question is easy to answer, because unless one of the
> values is volatile, then it's more efficient to check the denominator before
> the division than put the division in a try/catch block.

I don't understand how not using exceptions allow better efficiency.
If you want to detect the error, you have to make a test in both cases.

What's different is the way of transmitting the error.

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