warning when using throw(bad_alloc)

[arjor]

hello guys

i get the following warning when i try to try an throw an exception
given by the new command.

declaration:
void CopyTree(Vertex*& copy, const Vertex* originalTree)
throw(bad_alloc);

defenition:
void BinSearchTree::CopyTree(Vertex*& copy, const Vertex*
originalTree) throw(bad_alloc)
{
if (originalTree == NULL)
copy = NULL;

else {
copy = new Vertex(originalTree->getElement());
CopyTree(copy->left_, originalTree->left_);
CopyTree(copy->right_, originalTree->right_);
}
}

i get the following warning: warning C4290: C++ exception
specification ignored except to indicate a function is not
__declspec(nothrow)

any help would be appreciated

[Frank Birbacher]

Hi!

arjor schrieb:

declaration:
void CopyTree(Vertex*& copy, const Vertex* originalTree)
throw(bad_alloc);

[snip]

i get the following warning: warning C4290: C++ exception
specification ignored except to indicate a function is not
__declspec(nothrow)

It is just that msvc doesn't support exception specifications at all.
You could as well delete the "throw(bad_alloc)" part from your declaration.

Frank

[Frank Birbacher]

Hi!

Frank Birbacher schrieb:

It is just that msvc doesn't support exception specifications at all.
You could as well delete the "throw(bad_alloc)" part from your declaration.

Actually: it does support "throw()" which is actually quite important.
But MSVC recognizes nothing in between, that means it supports only no
throw and throw anything.

Frank

[Paavo Helde]

Frank Birbacher <bl************@gmx.netkirjutas:

Hi!

Frank Birbacher schrieb:

>It is just that msvc doesn't support exception specifications at all.
You could as well delete the "throw(bad_alloc)" part from your
declaration.

Actually: it does support "throw()" which is actually quite important.
But MSVC recognizes nothing in between, that means it supports only no
throw and throw anything.

And based on apparent consensus of previous threads on that issue, this
behavior (differentiating only no-throw and throw-anything) seems to be
widely recognized as the only one which makes sense, albeit not conforming
with the Standard.

Paavo