This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- To: Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 17:05:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: [3.3] Followup to C++ forced unwinding
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <20030430175335.GA18958@twiddle.net> <email@example.com> <20030430210342.GB697@redhat.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20030430230239.GH697@redhat.com> <3EB05952.email@example.com> <20030430235053.GR19185@tofu.dreamhost.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Nathan Myers wrote:
> There is no need to convert blocks to automatically rethrow. Coders
> can take responsibility for their own code.
That's crap. It's not you who gets the blame. Anything but an
automatic handling of the rethrow means that there will be people not
rethrowing the code which in turn means that sooner or later they will
run into problems. Not only will this be a nightmare to debug, but it
also just mean that those lusers demand that it is possible to write
such code since C++ exceptions allow it. Your "good C++ code measure"
is nothing but a recommendation.
- --------------. ,-. 444 Castro Street
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-----------------' \ Mountain View, CA 94041 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `---------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----