220 17909 <2e801af3-ded3-4527-beb2-8767d393a077@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Viktor Kirilov Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: noexcept on a non per-function basis Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 66 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <2e801af3-ded3-4527-beb2-8767d393a077@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1526_1957752426.1431789945878" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1431789949 15306 80.91.229.3 (16 May 2015 15:25:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 15:25:49 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCOYVYO3SUMBB66C3WVAKGQE2FHK5AY@isocpp.org Sat May 16 17:25:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qk0-f198.google.com ([209.85.220.198]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YtdyG-00069p-Rf for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 May 2015 17:25:49 +0200 Original-Received: by qkgv12 with SMTP id v12sf22380764qkg.2 for ; Sat, 16 May 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=312Yots+PN73etPt00NiQ0XLyYiexVofV8UU+SWNSMQ=; b=cCWApjaIdehjWRYUuTPaS1My+gVS5N9/g1agr0mT2CvKgoCO1Jw/SS4qHWE+U6zkQ8 tA5gXhM6L1O3jqWY0qMUX0sY6Ci4iHNlf20bFiJXb4SHaD2WMqOOaro5xVIDsRirzGRQ pgKXzuMB9ao/BjWHW37G6rij3xUPi4L3du9EmkeQ+0q9bAXo1zWfjGW5j84PsKksUDTV lSZmSDUeszsUaXn86fl0Fnz31BsIMBROQn3ZrkBbO1O67ikIX26PctIe8XBz/lwbkqEK SD38vZnyfBvkD99lbD6NgAUksiLBmxaaqQ1/97FM4eJ8QSe/TuJXANl+Is5yvpWpUD2+ padg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=312Yots+PN73etPt00NiQ0XLyYiexVofV8UU+SWNSMQ=; b=NqBUNs+rtkc31YMzGqcAe9Kkc8UWIOWkIPF7xRsHLUwJ4PugkEzrZigjBEL7kERSY2 21taHVXs2sd7yepKqN2PdOxcXj4zIVUq3O+iD958D2i+V6VhGtO09oi9cq//LeU+bROH mS6dSb/bTGFrCLBeEiriH0/mtZYmJCKCJOklE4E4lQAC85Hdxw8wyZXjhiWZhUo0np8k Q5m8O8f8B8cHIkWsDjLzEj3UXP/YQ34+UH38nFA6c+tW4gqfJyEhqKqPCqLfuDCMJPsT u8qfgdrq5bR3wCOpnijraJY62cee3vGTMpSPk4jvCghgGuWZEHQHdyszOETyCdcJOlRR vSdA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm23XOPmC+p265RDF3v8zLwiYW7XjoXF2afm5FinKV1zcfNKbUkWYVxU87roVOXFt/cLdy/ X-Received: by 10.236.140.195 with SMTP id e43mr21385433yhj.48.1431789947692; Sat, 16 May 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.101.5 with SMTP id t5ls2187343qge.69.gmail; Sat, 16 May 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.94.166 with SMTP id g35mr23072qge.28.1431789947054; Sat, 16 May 2015 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Sender: vik.kirilov@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:17909 Archived-At: ------=_Part_1526_1957752426.1431789945878 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1527_200584448.1431789945878" ------=_Part_1527_200584448.1431789945878 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All functions by default are noexcept(false) (except for destructors since c++11?). Is there a reason noexcept cannot be applied to a class like __declspec(dllexport) or to a scope - like extern "C"? It could be handy to set the default to true for a whole class and then set it to false only for a few functions. A (big?) benefit would be reduced binary size - less entries in the stack unwinding stuff for exceptions... Would such a proposal have any chance? Also I'm not sure if the applicability of constexpr is also the same (only on a per-function basis). -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_1527_200584448.1431789945878 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All functions by default are noexcept(false) (except = for destructors since c++11?).

Is there a reason n= oexcept cannot be applied to a class like __declspec(dllexport) or to a sco= pe - like extern "C"?

It could be handy to set the= default to true for a whole class and then set it to false only for a few = functions.

A (big?) benefit would be reduced binar= y size - less entries in the stack unwinding stuff for exceptions...
<= div>
Would such a proposal have any chance?

Also I'm not sure if the applicability of constexpr is also the sam= e (only on a per-function basis).

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_1527_200584448.1431789945878-- ------=_Part_1526_1957752426.1431789945878-- .