Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <5162031.1196997403342.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:16:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "Travis Vitek (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (STDCXX-240) #define _RWSTD_NO_EXCEPTIONS when
 exceptions are disabled via command line option
In-Reply-To: <15003360.1151524890009.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-240?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12549291 ] 

Travis Vitek commented on STDCXX-240:
-------------------------------------

The original snippet provided above shows someone trying to build their code without exception support, with a library was configured with exception support. If I attempt to do this [e.g., build the library as normal, then build the examples without exceptions], I get errors in the tests and examples where we use exception keywords try/throw/catch. I'm guessing I should go through and fix all of those issues and add those changes to the patch or I should open up a new bug for the problem. Considering the issue is pre-existing and is fairly large, it might be better to create a new bug for dealing with it.

I don't believe we should need to define the other macros explicitly. The include order is such that we shouldn't have to. I do see that we define _LIBC_THROWS to `throw ()' regardless of any of the other exception macros. This is probably wrong.

I believe the error above was caused by building the library with -qnoeh, and then attempting to build user code without it. Now that I think about it, that is a bad idea anyways.

> #define _RWSTD_NO_EXCEPTIONS when exceptions are disabled via command line option
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: STDCXX-240
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-240
>             Project: C++ Standard Library
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Build
>    Affects Versions: 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4
>            Reporter: Martin Sebor
>            Assignee: Travis Vitek
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 4.2.1
>
>         Attachments: stdcxx-240.patch
>
>
> Moved from the Rogue Wave bug tracking database:
> Class/File: stdcomp.h
> Fix Priority: Can Fix
> Long Description: 
>   *** Dec 1 1999 6:03PM *** sebor ***
> A request for enhancement.
> Subject: define RWSTD_NO_EXCEPTIONS when __HPACC_NOEH is
> Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:11:36 -0800
> From: Chichiang Wan <wanc@cup.hp.com>
> Organization: California Language Labs
> To: oemsupport <oemsupport@roguewave.com>
> CC: dhandly@cup.hp.com, wanc_at_hp <wanc@cup.hp.com>
> aCC has an option +noeh.  When it is provided, __HPACC_NOEH will be
> defined.  It would be nice for users to need to only use +noeh.  For
> that,  
> RWSTD_NO_EXCEPTIONS needs to be defined conditionally. 
> =========================================================
> $ cat test.C
> #include <string>
> $ aCC +noeh -c test.C
> Error 46: "/opt/aCC/include/memory", line 493 # Exception handling is 
> not
>     enabled (do not use the +noeh flag to aCC).
>       RWSTD_THROW_NO_MSG(tmp == 0, bad_alloc);
> -- Chichiang
> ****Modified By: sebor @ May 29, 2000 10:28:25 PM****
> We should do this AND test it -- not just on aCC but in general with all compilers that support this feature.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.