On 11/21/2011 04:27 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
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?
I don't have a strong opinion either way on statements, since they don't
have to deal with the ambiguity issue. Whichever seems more convenient
to you.
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.
Right, this issue just didn't occur to me before, sorry.
Jason
