Subject: Re: [boost] HP-UX_pa_risc_aCC test failure
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-11 10:02:49
I've been using this compiler a few years ago and I remember it wasn't
possible to write a function that only throws an exception without
having a warning complaining that the function never returns.
Basically, the compiler seemed to "ignore" the fact that a throw is
supposed to return. It might be the reason of your error. My
workaround used to be to put a dummy return statement just after the
Except this issue, I've never had any problem with exception handling
on this platform so #defining BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS is clearly wrong.
On 9/9/08, Gubenko, Boris <boris.gubenko_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Emil,
> I've forwarded your message to the team supporing aC++ compiler on PA-RISC.
> I'm pretty sure this platform supports exception handling. There must be
> something else.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
>> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Emil Dotchevski
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:29 PM
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: [boost] HP-UX_pa_risc_aCC test failure
>> I'm looking at this failure:
>> The assertion is an indication that a particular function that throws
>> an exception returned without throwing an exception. Does this
>> platform support exception handling? If not, shouldn't
>> BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS be #defined?
>> Emil Dotchevski
>> Reverge Studios, Inc.
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk