Re: [boost] Noexcept

Subject: Re: [boost] Noexcept
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-13 21:28:05

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Richard Hodges via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Does anyone actually have a measurable example of real code in which the
> unexceptional path induces any more execution overhead than an
> optional/variant/outcome return type?
>
> Because when I look at the code generated by gcc et all, I am convinced
> that you're solving a non-existant problem when seeking to replace
> exceptions.
>
> By all means have a partial return type such as outcome if a failure is to
> result in a useful execution path.
>
> But exceptions do not actually add overhead when used to signal actual
> exceptions.
>
> At least in the millions of lines of code I have written and read.
>

All true. Noexcept is not better than using exception handling, it is
better than *not* using exception handling without it. :)