On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 16:06 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > At this point I think it'd be simpler to handle noexcept in a > transaction-expression directly in cp_parser_transaction_expression.
And keep transaction statements as is, or change them as well? > Since TRANSACTION_EXPR_NOEX is only for the template representation, I'd > rather not add it to the language-independent tree code. Maybe > introduce a C++ template-specific NOEXCEPT_REGION tree code? Hmm, I'm a bit confused because looking at the previous iterations of this patch we said that it's best to keep the noexcept information attached to the transactions. What made you change your mind? I don't see any changes to language-independent code that didn't exist in the previous iterations. Torvald
