This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/25191] exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
- From: "hhinnant at apple dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Jan 2006 16:10:12 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/25191] exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
- References: <bug-25191-11686@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #24 from hhinnant at apple dot com 2006-01-11 16:10 -------
(In reply to comment #23)
> You forgot to mentin that -fno-exceptions is neither mandated, nor
> required to work with programs that play tricks with try/catch.
> So, your assertion is unfounded.
The demo program does not play tricks with try/catch. It uses the identifier
"try" in a completely conforming manner.
What subset of C++ programs do we expect to work under -fno-exceptions? And
where is that documented? The only thing I can find in our documentation that
addresses my question is:
>You may also wish to disable this option if you are compiling older
>C++ programs that don't use exception handling.
My demo is exactly that: A C++ program that does not use exception handling
(and yet is still conforming). And gcc (without libstdc++) handles it just
fine.
Where do we document that some, but not all libstdc++ headers change the
semantics of -fno-exception (as gcc documents it) and may render some
conforming C++ programs broken?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191