Well, since you're throwing an int-pointer then catch(int*) should also catch it quite happily. I guess you mean there will only be a catch(int) in addition to

Well, since you're throwing an int-pointer then catch(int*) should also catch it quite happily. I guess you mean there will only be a catch(int) in addition to catch(...) so in that aspect you're right of course. Still, I would think taking the address of something you throw should ring quite a few warning bells as opposed to merely a missing ref (&) in the catch handler. Similarly to "return &e" which would also be suspicious and require an extra look or two.