I have recently been able to put in a few hours toward my restrictive
exception specification warning mechanic.
I have it warning me correctly on very basic regular code with throw,
try/catch, function calls and exception specifications.
It's also activated by -Wres (restrictive exception specifica
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Simon Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess I should really be asking:
> How did most people here learn devving for GCC?
Read the source Luke!
There is no comprehensive out-of-source documentation of the C++ forntend.
Separate documentation is an exception, s
I've been planning to add a warning to GCC for a while.
I've recently begun learning the GCC internals and trying to add some code.
So far I have made very little progress.
All I have working is a warning parameter that, when enabled, emits a
warning whenever a function is declared. It's not look
I've been reading up on GCC internals so that I can begin my project.
Initial proposal: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00383.html
(with many follow-ups).
My idea of implementing so far is: Alter the code in gcc/cp/parser.c
so that I can check strict exception specification during parsing,
si
Jonathan Wakely said:
> Simon Hill wrote:
> > Brain Dessent wrote:
> >> You're essentially trusting that all
> >> exception specifiers for every function in the program and *all* library
> >> code are always present and always correct which is a huge leap of faith
> >> that I don't think is support
> The above works on code::blocks, which uses some form of GCC, and
> looks OK to me.
> Of course this only works for exactly one exception type.
> You'd have to wait for C++0X variadic templates (and hope you can
> throw them) if you need zero or more than one.
> It's also very verbose, a little
2008/9/24 Simon Hill:
> Brain Dessent wrote:
>> You're essentially trusting that all
>> exception specifiers for every function in the program and *all* library
>> code are always present and always correct which is a huge leap of faith
>> that I don't think is supported by reality.
>
> I agree tha
Brendon Costa wrote:
> You as an author of a new template class "could" define it the other way.
>
> The issue here is that doing so restricts usage of the generic
> component. In specific cases this may be desirable, but not for generic
> components like STL containers or those in boost. For gener
Simon Hill wrote:
> Brendon Costa said:
>> The author of the template class or container can't know
>> what types of exceptions will be thrown from them, so you must define
>> them as being able to throw all exceptions (which is how they are
>> currently).
> Ouch, you have a point. But couldn't you
Brendon Costa said:
> The author of the template class or container can't know
> what types of exceptions will be thrown from them, so you must define
> them as being able to throw all exceptions (which is how they are
> currently).
Ouch, you have a point. But couldn't you put this round the other
> I agree that it won't be very useful initially due to lots of third
> party code like boost neither defining nor adhering exception
> restrictions 100% of the time (STL may be guilty also). However, this
> is a catch 22. Why not provide the mechanism for verifying exception
> specifications so t
Thanks for all the links. I knew there were people wanting this but I
didn't quite get how big an issue it was.
Brain Dessent wrote:
> You're essentially trusting that all
> exception specifiers for every function in the program and *all* library
> code are always present and always correct which
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon Hill wrote:
> >
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
> >> horrified to see it's not written in C++, and it's loaded with macros
> >> ---
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Hill wrote:
>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
>> horrified to see it's not written in C++, and it's loaded with macros
>> --- why??).
>
> You seem to refer to g++ as if it's a sep
Simon Hill wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
> horrified to see it's not written in C++, and it's loaded with macros
> --- why??).
You seem to refer to g++ as if it's a separate program from gcc but it's
really not. All of the middle- and back-end code is
I have been following the development of C++0x and ConceptGCC and it
has got me interested in developing for G++.
I've haven't yet dived far into the G++ code, but I have just been
reading the GCC internals documentation at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
horrified
16 matches
Mail list logo
