Hello, I've been using this compiler a few years ago and I remember it wasn't possible to write a function that only throws an exception without having a warning complaining that the function never returns. Basically, the compiler seemed to "ignore" the fact that a throw is supposed to return. It might be the reason of your error. My workaround used to be to put a dummy return statement just after the throw... Except this issue, I've never had any problem with exception handling on this platform so #defining BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS is clearly wrong. HTH... Bruno On 9/9/08, Gubenko, Boris <boris.gubenko@hp.com> wrote:
Hi Emil,
I've forwarded your message to the team supporing aC++ compiler on PA-RISC. I'm pretty sure this platform supports exception handling. There must be something else.
Thanks, Boris
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Emil Dotchevski Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:29 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] HP-UX_pa_risc_aCC test failure
I'm looking at this failure:
http://www.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/output/ HP-UX_pa_risc_aCC-boost-bin-v2-libs-exception-test-throw_excep tion_test-test-acc-pa_risc-debug.html
The assertion is an indication that a particular function that throws an exception returned without throwing an exception. Does this platform support exception handling? If not, shouldn't BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS be #defined?
Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost