Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Noexcept
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-06-14 08:31:57

2017-06-13 21:25 GMT+02:00 Richard Hodges via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:

> 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.

I think the expectation that `outcome<>` tries to solve is somewhat
different: that entering exceptional path should be no more expensive than
entering the non-exceptional pat. They do not even have to be fast. They
just need to be guaranteed to be the same, so that you have a predictable
(not necessarily super-small) latency, so that you can guarantee the
worst-case performance.

This is what I understood from Boost.Outcome review.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at