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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk