Exception specifications on functions useless?

Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse.cz
Mon Apr 2 02:59:11 PDT 2012

On Tuesday 20 of March 2012, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> - C++11 deprecates it and instead introduces a noexcept keyword which
> forbids the function to throw anything
>  I'm not strongly biased either way, but what we have right now are really
> just pretty comments on functions. I think we should either say that we use
> the specifications, in which case -fno-enforce-sh-specs should not be used
> at least in debug builds, or we can say we follow the C++11/Boost/etc.
> trend and not use them, in which case we can have one macro for portable
> way of saying noexcept and have an EasyHack for removing the other
> specifications. BTW, it should be also noted that SAL_THROW() expands to
> nothing with gcc.
>  Opinions on this?

 Could this be please added to the next TSC agenda? It doesn't look to me like 
there's a clear consensus, and not caring much myself about either 
possibility, I don't want to do any change. I'll at most 
remove -fno-enforce-eh-specs from --enable-dbgutil builds if there's no 
resolution on this, so that clang is not the only compiler to find mistakes.

 Lubos Lunak
 l.lunak at suse.cz

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list