> If really the author meant to add noexcept, she must then be aware of the
> problem and properly handle exceptions anyway, as IIUC all this is merely a
> runtime check that leads to program abortion.
Its sadly easy to allow exceptions, they are slippery little things:
```c++
int f() try {
the code;
} catch(...){
now I must not allow anything to throw here;
careful of IO, constructing objects, operators;
sheesh, not much you CAN do;
better just terminate, or return -1;
}
```
The nice thing about the `noexcept` is it can catch exceptions from the `catch`
clause too, so it would be good if it could be used.
> So authors of C++ plugins are forced to consider the issue. But that breaks
> C++ API.
Though I wouldn't expect too many C++ plugins for the new API, yet, now is the
best chance.
> Though, I still wonder how this can change the ABI, especially in C linkage
> where there can't be no name mangling anyway.
I wouldn't think it would change the ABI, I would have expected the stack frame
to have a flag saying this function is `noexcept` so the unwinder can see it
and terminate. So its internal to the function. But it is implementation
dependent, so who knows.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/1215#issuecomment-244962916
