On 9 January 2013 09:13, Tobias Ringström wrote: > On 01/08/2013 10:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 8 January 2013 21:48, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> Tobias, please report it to bugzilla. The standard places no >>> requirements on what happens except that std::terminate is called but >>> even if it's not a bug there is room for improvement. >> >> >> I was a bit hasty, the standard does place some requirements: >> >> In the situation where the search for a handler (15.3) encounters the >> outermost block of a function with a >> noexcept-specification that does not allow the exception (15.4), it is >> implementation-defined whether the >> stack is unwound, unwound partially, or not unwound at all before >> std::terminate() is called. In all other > > > That only tells us that GCC's noexcept handling is standard compliant. It > does not say that it's the least useful. :) To be compliant it must document its implementation-defined behaviour.. >> G++ appears to partially unwind the stack, although that isn't >> documented at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Exception-handling.html > > > That text is probably older than noexcept, and GCC actually does follow > what's writted there when noexcept isn't used. Yes, but the relevant paragraph from the standard says that case and the noexcept case are distinct, and both (separately) implementation defined, G++ only defines one of them.
