Subject: Re: [boost] [c++1] BOOST_NOEXCEPT macros?
From: Domagoj Saric (domagoj.saric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-28 11:00:45
On 20.10.2011. 15:15, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Domagoj Saric wrote:
>> On 19.10.2011. 17:47, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>>> Using (1) on existing code could change behavior.
>> Again, how could it change behaviour?
>> Unless, again,: "...there is a real world person/problem that
>> depends on the defined std::unexpected/std::terminate behaviour
>> of noexcept as opposed to undefined or implementation defined
>> behaviour of a compiler specific in case "someone violates a
>> promise given about the particular function"..."
> State it however you might like, but telling a compiler that a function no longer emits any exceptions can mean changes in optimization, insertion of validation logic, etc., which can *change behavior*.
AFAIK optimization is not allowed to manifest any change in behaviour, and the
addition of noexcept already by itself changes/inserts "validation logic" so I
still don't see what difference does that make?
-- "What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate." Neil Postman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk