------- Comment #35 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-04-27 10:04 ------- (In reply to comment #34) > Also, if you argue against __try/__catch, why do you already use > __throw_exception_again, which is just a different name for throw? If you can > use this, you can as well use __try and __catch. Since try/catch can be > redefined, try and catch used in the libstdc++ code clearly are not the actual > normal C++ keywords.
I'm finding this, seemingly secondary, argument rather compelling. All in all, I'm personally coming to the conclusion that we should implement the change originally suggested by Howard, for many additional reasons, totally unrelated to Objective C. In other terms, in that way -fno-exceptions would be much more safe and much more useful, and, in any case, we would not be playing any trick which we are not playing already (as explained above). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191
