On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 08:56, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > I think the __throw_bad_alloc() and __throw_bad_array_new_length() > > functions should always be rare, so marking them cold seems fine (users who > > define their own allocators that want to throw bad_alloc "often" will > > probably throw it directly, they shouldn't be using our __throw_bad_alloc() > > function anyway). I don't think __throw_bad_exception is ever used, so that > > doesn't matter (we could remove it from the header and just keep its > > definition in the library, but there's no big advantage to doing that). > > Others like __throw_length_error() should also be very very rare, and could > > be marked cold. > > > > Maybe we should just mark everything in <bits/functexcept.h> as cold. If > > users want to avoid the cost of calls to those functions they can do so by > > checking function preconditions/arguments to avoid the exceptions. There > > are very few places where a throwing libstdc++ API doesn't have a way to > > avoid the exception. The only one that isn't easily avoidable is > > __throw_bad_alloc but OOM should be rare. > > Hi, > this marks everything in functexcept.h as cold and I also noticed that > we probably want to mark as such terminate.
Should we do the same for __glibcxx_assert_fail, declared in libstdc++-v3/include/bits/c++config?
