------- Comment #25 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-11 16:41 ------- Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
"hhinnant at apple dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- 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 does, with xlgue(try, ....). | What subset of C++ programs do we expect to work under -fno-exceptions? Those that understand that try/catch are special. [...] | >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). Can you provide standard specs that says the program must work with -fno-exceptions? | 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? If the issue is that -fno-exceptions is not well documented, then we should document it better. I'm happy to review documentation patches that reflect the current state. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191