From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30114 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 21:25:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30090 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 21:25:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 21:25:12 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id C95BFF2D45; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:25:11 -0500 (EST) To: mark@mark.mielke.cc, terpstra@ito.tu-darmstadt.de Subject: Re: Warnings for unhandled c++ exceptions? Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Message-Id: <20030203212511.C95BFF2D45@nile.gnat.com> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:25:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 I think it is a bad idea to put in this warning. There are good and valid arguments on both sides of this issue. Ada and C++ have both decided (after a discussion in which the merits of both sides were fully understood) decided to go one way, Java (which may or may not have been subject to a similar carefully considered argument, who knows?) decided to go the other way. It is inappropriate to have a compiler second guess this decision.