Re: [boost] [inspect] exceptions (FW: [Boost-users] no exceptions)

Subject: Re: [boost] [inspect] exceptions (FW: [Boost-users] no exceptions)
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-23 02:37:39

At Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:38:59 +0300,
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> 
> Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Robert Kawulak
> > <robert.kawulak_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> >From Boost Users ML:
> >>
> >>> From: Hochhaus, Andrew
> >>> I would like to use boost with BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS [1] and the g++
> >>> -fno-exceptions flag. However, it appears that some spots in boost
> >>> library code:
> >>>
> >>> a) throw exceptions with the "raw" throw keyword [instead of
> >>> BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION or boost::throw_exception]
> >>> b) use try ... catch blocks without "#ifnef BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS" guards
> >>
> >> Wouldn't it be a good idea to add checks for these to the inspect tool? Also, non-empty
> >> exception specifications are discouraged by Boost guidelines - should appropriate checks be
> >> added too?
> > 
> > +1
> 
> I don't think that Boost libraries are required to support
> non-conforming compilers or operation modes of compilers, therefore
> adding inspect check for a workaround for such non-comforming
> behaviour would be wrong, I think.

Well... I was going to write this:

   I think we ought to establish something weaker than requirements
   but still official, like "portability best practices" or something,
   that would include making the adjustments needed to run in
   exception-free environments.

but the more I think about it, the less clear I am on what that means.
Would we be asking people to try to recover from out-of-memory and
other exceptional conditions via some other mechanism when exceptions
are disabled?  That seems impractical to me.  We could barely even use
the standard library under those circumstances.  What do people who
turn off exceptions expect from their libraries?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com