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.lu...@suse.cz _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
