[Bug libstdc++/64276] would be better to use __cpp_exceptions rather than __EXCEPTIONS to determine whether exceptions are available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/64276] would be better to use __cpp_exceptions rather than __EXCEPTIONS to determine whether exceptions are available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: redi Date: Fri Dec 12 15:58:49 2014 New Revision: 218679 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=218679root=gccview=rev Log: PR libstdc++/64276 *

[Bug libstdc++/64276] would be better to use __cpp_exceptions rather than __EXCEPTIONS to determine whether exceptions are available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/64276] would be better to use __cpp_exceptions rather than __EXCEPTIONS to determine whether exceptions are available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- I don't think it matters as libstdc++ is only designed to be compiled with gcc. In fact if used with another compiler, the runtime exception no longer applies.

[Bug libstdc++/64276] would be better to use __cpp_exceptions rather than __EXCEPTIONS to determine whether exceptions are available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64276 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot