RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!

["Assinovsky, Lev" <LAssinovsky at algorithm dot aelita dot com>]

Sorry for mistyping in my previous message.
Right text is:
The bug is NOT shown up if 
an exception spec of exception raiser exactly matches 
an exception spec of the virtual function.

----
Lev Assinovsky
Aelita Software Corporation
O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
ICQ# 165072909


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assinovsky, Lev 
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:43 PM
> To: Eljay Love-Jensen; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
> 
> 
> If to compile with -fno-enforce-eh-specs my testcase works.
> Actually that's very natural. The bug is shown up if 
> an exception spec of exception raiser exactly matches 
> an exception spec of the virtual function.
> 
> ----
> Lev Assinovsky
> Aelita Software Corporation
> O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
> ICQ# 165072909
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eljay Love-Jensen [mailto:eljay@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:46 PM
> > To: Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Lev,
> > 
> > I notice that if the throw(int) specification is taken off 
> the Raiser 
> > constructor, then the ~Object() is called with -O3.
> > 
> > (I'm using GCC 3.3.1 on CygWin / Windows XP.)
> > 
> > Very odd.  Good catch.  Have you filed a bug?
> > 
> > BTW, in general, I've found that it's usually best NOT to put 
> > in throw 
> > specifications for functions / methods.  Ever.  (This 
> > restriction does not 
> > apply to putting in the "throw() -- I throw nothing, ever" 
> > specification.  But even that should be used with great caution.)
> > 
> > If C++ did exception specifications like how Java does them, 
> > then that'd be 
> > a different story.
> > 
> > --Eljay
> > 
> > 
>