runtime hook for Crash on Error

[Don Clugston]

On 04/06/12 21:29, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:20:56 -0400, Don Clugston <dac at nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. There exist cases where you cannot know why the assert failed.
>> 2. Therefore you never know why an assert failed.
>> 3. Therefore it is not safe to unwind the stack from a nothrow function.
>>
>> Spot the fallacies.
>>
>> The fallacy in moving from 2 to 3 is more serious than the one from 1
>> to 2: this argument is not in any way dependent on the assert occuring
>> in a nothrow function. Rather, it's an argument for not having
>> AssertError at all.
>
> I'm not sure that is the issue here at all. What I see is that the
> unwinding of the stack is optional, based on the assumption that there's
> no "right" answer.
>
> However, there is an underlying driver for not unwinding the stack --
> nothrow. If nothrow results in the compiler optimizing out whatever
> hooks a function needs to properly unwind itself (my limited
> understanding is that this helps performance), then there *is no
> choice*, you can't properly unwind the stack.
>
> -Steve

No, this whole issue started because the compiler currently does do 
unwinding whenever it can. And Walter claimed that's a bug, and it 
should be explicitly disabled.

It is, in my view, an absurd position. AFAIK not a single argument has 
been presented in favour of it. All arguments have been about "you 
should never unwind Errors".