Le 04/06/2012 21:29, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:20:56 -0400, Don Clugston <[email protected]> wrote:
1. There exist cases where you cannot know why the assert failed.
2. Therefore you never know why an assert failed.
3. Therefore it is not safe to unwind the stack from a nothrow function.
Spot the fallacies.
The fallacy in moving from 2 to 3 is more serious than the one from 1
to 2: this argument is not in any way dependent on the assert occuring
in a nothrow function. Rather, it's an argument for not having
AssertError at all.
I'm not sure that is the issue here at all. What I see is that the
unwinding of the stack is optional, based on the assumption that there's
no "right" answer.
However, there is an underlying driver for not unwinding the stack --
nothrow. If nothrow results in the compiler optimizing out whatever
hooks a function needs to properly unwind itself (my limited
understanding is that this helps performance), then there *is no
choice*, you can't properly unwind the stack.
-Steve
It change nothing in term of performances as long as you not throw. And
when you throw, performance are not your main problem.
