>  It's probably a good idea to post in the Microsoft newsgroups
>  for specific compiler issues.

But is not a MS compiler issue. It works as advertised if you follow
their recommendation: use /EHa. The boost implementation of
execution_monitor is what I want to improve.

>  FWIW, when David pointed me to his article (thanks again David)
>  I came to same the same conclusion myself (that is, that /EHa
>  is _not_ required for this technique).

a) What article?
 
b) Why is not required? According to David under /EHs the compiler is
free to optimize away exception frames if it does not see code that can
throw, now if eventually *the technique* generates a C++ throw who knows
what could happen?

I would be nice if somebody cares to explain in some detail why the
technique works fine as is. 

CPU.


-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces@[...].org
[mailto:boost-bounces@[...].org] On Behalf Of Holger Grund
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 3:34 PM
To: boost@[...].org
Subject: [boost] Re: Re: boost::execution_monitor impl under windows

Carlos,

>  > No, I'm disabling the warning with pragmas.  The technique works
fine.
> 
>  I don't think so. Well, it can fail. See Carl Daniel post on 9/21. I
saw
>  the thread(s) on comp.lang.c++.moderated about the subject but nobody
>  mentioned the interaction of the *technique* with /EHs at that time.
> 
It's probably a good idea to post in the Microsoft newsgroups
for specific compiler issues.

FWIW, when David pointed me to his article (thanks again David)
I came to same the same conclusion myself (that is, that /EHa
is _not_ required for this technique).
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost