[cxx-abi-dev] C++ ABI version 2

[Hubert Tong]

> If you?d like to make a concrete proposal for a revised ABI, you?re
> welcome to,
> and we can debate it then.  However, before we can, we really need to
> understand the language feature we?d be implementing; it seems to be
> somewhat underspecified.
Right.

>
> For starters, [propagation]p8 does not define how the exception should be
> copied on implementation that do perform this copy.  I presume that you'd
> like it to be copied as if from a const l-value.  However, we do not
appear
> to be authorized to introduce a use of such a constructor;
[except.throw]p5
> only authorizes the compiler to check access to the constructor that
would be
> used to initialize the exception object from the throw operand, and in C+
+11,
> that will often be a move constructor.
>
> Also, substituting std::bad_exception just because we don?t know how to
> copy the exception, as opposed to because copying the exception actually
> failed, does not actually appear to be authorized.  The standard should
define
> the desired behavior when the copy constructor is non-const,
inaccessible,
> or defined as deleted.
Or if the copy constructor is a specialization of a template which would
otherwise not be instantiated.
The issues were also brought up in N3771 as issue CA 12.

>
> John.
> _______________________________________________
> cxx-abi-dev mailing list
> cxx-abi-dev at codesourcery.com
> http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sourcerytools.com/pipermail/cxx-abi-dev/attachments/20131122/a7303e82/attachment.html>