"carlos pizano" <carlospizano@[...].com>  writes:

> > 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?

The very link I quoted in my first reply to you.  Once again:
http://www.boost.org/more/error_handling.html.  Did you read it?

>  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?

It doesn't matter if exception frames get optimized away, since a
major aim of *the technique* is to _avoid executing any unwinding
actions_ and _prevent the SEH from being caught_.

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

More details I can't provide for you.  It's a hack.  It just works.
We've never seen it not work, except under the documented conditions
(crash from within a catch {...} block).

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost