Re: [boost] [Thread] Win32 exception handling

Subject: Re: [boost] [Thread] Win32 exception handling
From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-29 14:13:47

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> on Tue Nov 25 2008, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov-AT-web.de> wrote:
> 
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> > [...]
> >> OK, great, a second data point.  How do you feel about the fact that the
> >> upcoming standard requires the catch(...)?
> >
> > IMO, that's very idiotic, if true.
> 
> I think what I wrote was misleading.  I should have written that it
> requires the catch(...) on any platform that doesn't automatically call
> terminate() as part of the response when an exception escapes from a
> thread.

I would have thought (not checking the current draft) that the standard
(still) requires terminate() when "no matching handler is found". (Note
that Boost.Thread's catch(...) *IS* matching handler and so it doesn't
fall under that "no matching handler is found" clause).

Anyway, how could Boost.Thread call terminate() in ***main/initial***
thread on a "platform that doesn't automatically call terminate() as
part of the response when an exception escapes from a thread"
(main/initial thread)? No way.

BTW, in my view, the response to an exception escaping the thread shall
be abort() (at throw point), not terminate().

Related:

(Rhetorical question.)

When are you standard folks finally going to fix ES (exception
specifications) and get rid of very idiotic ES' mandatory catch(...)?

The current standard-mandated ES behaviour just hurts and doesn't help
anyone except archaic one-phase setjmp/longjmp based "C exceptions"
implementors enabled to claim compliance.

regards,
alexander.