------- Comment #56 from l dot lunak at suse dot cz 2008-09-24 08:50 -------
(In reply to comment #55)
> It seems reasonable to me for try { X } catch... to mean X when
> -fno-exceptions. We don't need to error except on throw.
It seems unreasonable to me that gcc would silently modify code's behaviour,
just like it would be unreasonable that -pedantic would silently change 'long
long i = 2LL << 34;' to 'long i = 0;'. With today's complex build systems it is
not that difficult to get -fno-exceptions without noticing and then get code
that works differently than intended (and I'm not making this up, I had such a
real case).
If people really want code with exception handling to work with both
-fexception states, then they need to write the code with that in mind and then
they can as well just use __try/__catch macros the way libstdc++ does now, just
without breaking the code for the rest of people who can run into trouble if
the compiler/libraries try to outguess them.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191
