[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS GIS] #869: Compile libs with -fexception

[GRASS GIS]

#869: Compile libs with -fexception
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  rblazek      |       Owner:  grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
      Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed                   
  Priority:  normal       |   Milestone:  6.5.0                    
 Component:  Compiling    |     Version:  unspecified              
Resolution:  worksforme   |    Keywords:                           
  Platform:  Unspecified  |         Cpu:  All                      
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Comment (by glynn):

 Replying to [comment:2 rblazek]:

 > Well, I expected something like that, but I must say, that I did not
 expect, that you want "to make life harder for anyone trying to use the
 GRASS libraries". I always thought that you are just ignoring them.

 As it appears not have been obvious, the comment wasn't entirely serious.
 Although it's not without some basis.

 > I think that this ticket should be closed as wontfix, not worksforme.

 I spent some time thinking about this, and concluded that "worksforme" is
 correct. The libraries work for their intended purpose, i.e. GRASS
 modules. "wontfix" implies that there's something to fix.

 > Can you discover more about how you want to disable use of GRASS
 libraries, it could save us wasting time.

 It's not that I'm actually planning to disable anything, just that making
 any changes which make their intended uses harder for the benefit of
 unintended use would occur over my dead body (well, my departure). Ditto
 for foregoing changes which would make intended use easier (e.g. recent
 changes to 7.0 mean that functions such as Rast_open_* and
 Rast_{get,put}_row now generate a fatal error, so callers don't have to
 deal with this themselves).

 In that regard, -fexceptions doesn't benefit GRASS itself in any way,
 would require various configure checks to ensure that the compiler
 actually supports that flag, increases memory usage (according to the gcc
 docs), and may not actually help you at all (because unwinding the stack
 isn't going to magically revert any incomplete modifications, so there's
 no guarantee that the next call to a library function won't just segfault;
 and that's not a bug; once G_fatal_error() has been called, all bets are
 off).

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/ticket/869#comment:6>
GRASS GIS <http://grass.osgeo.org>