aheejin added a comment. In D67208#1659972 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D67208#1659972>, @dschuff wrote:
> If this is to be like `-fdwarf-exceptions` I assume the idea is that > eventually it will default on when targeting wasm, and become one of those > flags that most users never set. In that case it really just selects the > default exception model, and thus it should be compatible with > `-fno-exceptions` just as `-fdwarf-exceptions` is.\ `-fwasm-exceptions` works fine with `-fno-exceptions`. That has the same effect as when you specify both `-fdwarf-exceptions` and `-fno-exceptions` together; it just lowers invokes to calls. Is that not what you mean? > Also `-fno-exceptions` doesn't really mean "no exceptions whatsoever" because > IIRC if you call something that the compiler isn't sure never throws, it > generates an implicit catch-all that calls `std::terminate`. So how it does > that would still be affected by the exception model. (and whatever downstream > invoke-removing pass or postprocessing tool might care). `-fno-exceptions` does not generate try-catch with calls to `std::terminate`. The native x86 compiler does not do that either. It just assumes exceptions don't exist. (And you can't use keywords like `try`, `catch`, or `throw` with `-fno-exceptions`.) What you described is when we use `noexcept` on the function declaration but the function calls another function that can throw, I think. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D67208/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D67208 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
