Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Robert Kawulak <robert.kawulak@gmail.com> wrote:
From Boost Users ML:
From: Hochhaus, Andrew I would like to use boost with BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS [1] and the g++ -fno-exceptions flag. However, it appears that some spots in boost library code:
a) throw exceptions with the "raw" throw keyword [instead of BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION or boost::throw_exception] b) use try ... catch blocks without "#ifnef BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS" guards
Wouldn't it be a good idea to add checks for these to the inspect tool? Also, non-empty exception specifications are discouraged by Boost guidelines - should appropriate checks be added too?
+1
I don't think that Boost libraries are required to support non-conforming compilers or operation modes of compilers, therefore adding inspect check for a workaround for such non-comforming behaviour would be wrong, I think.
Why use BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION to throw?
- Typically, there is no need to do anything else to support BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS builds;
- Enables boost::exception_ptr, so the exceptions you throw can be transported between threads;
- Enables boost::error_info, so users can attach stuff to exceptions.
- Enables better messages from boost::diagnostic_information.
I fail to see how the above refutes my statement. We don't have a requirement that Boost libraries work with non-conforming environment. Nor is it required that any Boost library uses Boost.Exception. Therefore, adding no-exceptions to inspect checks -- whose primary purpose is to beat authors whose libraries fail those checks -- would be wrong. -- Vladimir Prus Mentor Graphics +7 (812) 677-68-40