This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Consistently using __throw_*
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:15:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consistently using __throw_*
- References: <41DBFF39.email@example.com> <20050105153700.GA40822@compsoc.man.ac.uk>
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Indeed, I mean to add a __throw exactly for throws from "user code", that is
__throw (which boils down to either throw or abort)
If that is to be used in place of "throw;" then isn't that what
__throw_exception_again() is intended for? It doesn't abort() but does
it need to? Is it not enough to just let a "throw;" statement compile
with -fno-exceptions ?
If -fno-exceptions was given then we will already have aborted when the
original __throw_xxx function was run, unless the exception we've caught
was thrown by user code.
testcases (see, in particular, many cases in 27_io/basic_istream and
There are also a few instances in testsuite_abi.cc and testsuite_hooks.cc.
Ideally, we should be able to build and regtest cleanly with