Re: signal handling and (structured) exception handling

From:

Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:42:08 -0400

Message-ID:

<2ZGdnQ3ho8otHknXnZ2dnUVZ_tBi4p2d@giganews.com>

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:05 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:

Peter wrote:

I'm a little bit at loss, why the new C++ standard (C++0x) does not
include something like Windows structured exception handling.

Why should it be included in the Standard (new or old) when any
implementation is free to provide its own way of dealing with those?

I certainly prefer a C++ Exception to a signal, as the signal only
gives you the choice to terminate the process or mess around with
something as ugly as setjmp/longjmp.

Signals aren't really normative, are they?

Signals are normative.

Well, yes, but not in this context. There are significant restrictions
on what a portable program can do with signals, and portable signal
handling does not involve null pointer checks or any of the other
diagnostic things that are the subject of this thread.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of
"The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference"
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)