From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-15890-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6489 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2004 11:29:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 6482 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2004 11:29:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO gate.algorithm.aelita.com) (212.176.18.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2004 11:29:06 -0000
Received: from bagman.edm.com ([10.0.0.4]) by gate.algorithm.aelita.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35)
          with ESMTP id com for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>;
          Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:29:03 +0300
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1251"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:37:00 -0000
Message-ID: <3F6F4712B759A34ABD453A8B39C10D6201F2CB64@bagman.edm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
From: "Assinovsky, Lev" <LAssinovsky@algorithm.aelita.com>
To: "Assinovsky, Lev" <LAssinovsky@algorithm.aelita.com>,
	"Eljay Love-Jensen" <eljay@adobe.com>,
	<gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2

Sorry for mistyping in my previous message.
Right text is:
The bug is NOT shown up if=20
an exception spec of exception raiser exactly matches=20
an exception spec of the virtual function.

----
Lev Assinovsky
Aelita Software Corporation
O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
ICQ# 165072909


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assinovsky, Lev=20
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:43 PM
> To: Eljay Love-Jensen; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
>=20
>=20
> If to compile with -fno-enforce-eh-specs my testcase works.
> Actually that's very natural. The bug is shown up if=20
> an exception spec of exception raiser exactly matches=20
> an exception spec of the virtual function.
>=20
> ----
> Lev Assinovsky
> Aelita Software Corporation
> O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
> ICQ# 165072909
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eljay Love-Jensen [mailto:eljay@adobe.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:46 PM
> > To: Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi Lev,
> >=20
> > I notice that if the throw(int) specification is taken off=20
> the Raiser=20
> > constructor, then the ~Object() is called with -O3.
> >=20
> > (I'm using GCC 3.3.1 on CygWin / Windows XP.)
> >=20
> > Very odd.  Good catch.  Have you filed a bug?
> >=20
> > BTW, in general, I've found that it's usually best NOT to put=20
> > in throw=20
> > specifications for functions / methods.  Ever.  (This=20
> > restriction does not=20
> > apply to putting in the "throw() -- I throw nothing, ever"=20
> > specification.  But even that should be used with great caution.)
> >=20
> > If C++ did exception specifications like how Java does them,=20
> > then that'd be=20
> > a different story.
> >=20
> > --Eljay
> >=20
> >=20
>=20