Re: [boost] The noexcept Specifier & Block

Subject: Re: [boost] The noexcept Specifier & Block
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-18 12:18:25

On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >>    http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html
>> >>
>> >> And quoting for the document:
>> >>
>> >>  # A two-phase exception-handling model is not strictly necessary to implement
>> >>  # C++ language semantics, but it does provide some benefits. For example,
>> >                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >>  # the first phase allows an exception-handling mechanism to dismiss an
>> >>  # exception before stack unwinding begins, which allows resumptive exception
>> >>  # handling (correcting the exceptional condition and resuming execution at
>> >>  # the point where it was raised). While C++ does not support resumptive
>> >>  # exception handling, other languages do, and the two-phase model allows
>> >>  # C++ to coexist with those languages on the stack.
>> >>
>> >> How many industrial strength languages support resumptive exception handling?
>> >
>> > Irrelevant.
>>
>> Not, if you're talking about the impact of EH.
>
> If you insist... this is very vendor/platform specific.

Well, we are deeply into quality of implementation when we are
talking about the performance of exception handling and its
impact on C++ programs, so I don't where you are driving at.

> On IBM z/OS for
> example, resumptive exception handling (aka "condition handling") is
> available for COBOL, PL/I, C, and C++ (not sure about FORTRAN).

None of those requires resumptive exception handling.

> I still
> don't see the relevancy, though.

Well, you were blaming 2-phase exception handling, and now
you say you don't see the relevance.  Make up your friend, comrad.