https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785
--- Comment #40 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34) > Anyway, will defer this to Jason, the change to only do what() printing if > derived from std::exception was fairly small and can be always reverted if > there is agreement on that. My perspective is that what() in an exception isn't an established general pattern based on name lookup like e.g. begin(), it's a convention of the std::exception hierarchy. So it seems a stretch to expect it to do something similar for other thrown types. But if the committee wants to move in that direction I don't object. (In reply to Hana Dusíková from comment #35) > Btw another thing ... Jakub, how do you feel about disabling > `-fno-exception` in consteval code or even constexpr code which doesn't > result in codegen? As I told Corentin when he asked a month ago, this seems like a lot more trouble than it's worth.
