|
|
|
|
|
|
by chipdart
674 days ago
|
|
|
> Except the compiler still needs to ensure that if an exception bubbles through a noexcept function, std::terminate will be called, even if the exception were caught at some level above. That's the failsafe I mentioned. > Generally what a language feature is intended to do is less relevant than what it actually does, over time. Not true, and again this take misses the whole point. The point of noexcept is to declare that a function does not throw exceptions. If a function is declared as noexcept, the whole point is that it does not throw exceptions. How the runtime handles a violation of this contract is something that only expresses in a bug. The same applies for exceptions thrown in destructors. It makes no sense to describe destructors as something that calls std::terminate . |
|
|
Also, of course destructors are not "something that calls std::terminate", because they do many other things.
For function definitions, noexcept is perfectly equivalent to wrapping the body of your function in try {} catch (...) {std::terminate();}. In fact, noexcept doesn't even add any extra optimization options for the compiler: the compiler can already use the presence of such a block to decide that your function can't throw exceptions and optimize accordingly. Whether it can also ellide this block is a different matter, and noexcept doesn't help with that. It's just a nifty piece of syntax instead of this block.
Conversely, the noexcept declaration on the function doesn't allow the compiler to deduce anything about exceptions not being thrown inside the function, because the standard doesn't forbid throwing exceptions.
The only purpose noexcept serves other than a try/catch block is when used with declarations - there is indeed a difference in how the compiler can optimize a call to a function declared `extern void foo() noexcept;` and a function declared as `extern void foo();`