https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98861
--- Comment #28 from cqwrteur <unlvsur at live dot com> --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #27) > > But portable code can't rely on deterministict exceptions either, yet you > > insist that it's essential and you can't live without it. It seems you're > > quite happy to rely on non-standard things when it suits you, but when it > > doesn't it's completely unusable. Because you're a timewaster. > > It will be portable when it is a part of the C++ standard. > > > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #25) > > > I mean you can try to fix it a little. However, it breaks ABI. > > > > So do deterministic exceptions. > > It does not. No existing code will be broken because of deterministic > exceptions. > > > Please go away and write your own compiler or language. > > Rust folks did that. Are you happy with it? > > I have no interest in writing my own compiler or language. I am more > interested in how to fixing existing things. I was a lover of C++ EH and I > completely hate C++ exceptions when I understand the ugliness beneath it. > That is why deterministic exceptions are important. > > Same with C++ iostream, they need to be replaced with something else too. That is why Herb Sutter said "digging the hole we already jumped into". Those fixing makes nonsense, to be honest.
