https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
m101010a at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m101010a at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
--- Comment #6 from James Y Knight ---
I realize that my suggestion above could only solve _most_ of the problem --
e.g. the original example, where the noexcept function doesn't have a try/catch
in it.
In that original example, there's no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
James Y Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||foom at fuhm dot net
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
Sergey Barannikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||barannikov88 at gmail dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-09
14:42:54 UTC ---
If you're looking for 'bad_guy' to be in the backtrace, that sounds to me like
you want it to not be unwound at all, and I'm surprised that it doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55918
--- Comment #3 from Tobias Ringström tobias at ringis dot se 2013-01-09
17:39:20 UTC ---
Yes, I want 'bad_guy' to be in the backtrace, so you are correct that I don't
want the stack to be unwound at all, but unfortunately it is. It seems to be
