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

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Matus Chochlik <chochlik@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Bruno Lalande <bruno.lalande@gmail.com> wrote:

...

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...

if this is the reason, then using the BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(result) macro is (AFAICT) the best option as some other compilers complain about returns (or any other code) behind unconditional throw being unreachable.

No, this is not the reason. This test: http://beta.boost.org/development/tests/trunk/developer/output/HP-UX_pa_risc... fails only on that platform (if you ignore stale results in the test matrix, and Borland which isn't supported), and the problem being reported is that a function which is supposed to throw an exception, returns without throwing. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode