------- Comment #65 from jason at redhat dot com 2008-11-20 15:14 ------- Subject: Re: exception_defines.h #defines try/catch
No, it doesn't make any sense to use try/catch in a program that you're planning to build with -fno-exceptions. It does, however, make sense to use try/catch in a general purpose library that you want to work with exceptions enabled or disabled, such as libstdc++. I believe Lubos is arguing that such libraries ought to use preprocessor tricks to accomplish this, but defining something like __try and __catch instead of try and catch. The difference between this approach and my patch is that it requires the library writer to jump through hoops to make their code work with exceptions enabled and disabled. I guess Lubos thinks this is good, that this is an unusual thing to want to do and so people that want to do it need to be very explicit about it so that people who don't want that but mistakenly build their code with -fno-exceptions get an error rather than a warning. Anyone else have an opinion about this? And yes, -Wexceptions is on by default in my patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25191
