http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-09
19:32:28 UTC ---
The issue is what the "correct" definition of the trait is, but I think we need
a DR to clarify it
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-09
18:37:37 UTC ---
Thus Daniel was wrong when he said that fixing 51295 automatically renders
correct his current implementation of the trait? I suspect there is a
misunderstanding here: we are in contr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Dave Abrahams changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dave at boostpro dot com
--- Comment #10
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-09
16:02:11 UTC ---
Corrected testcase:
struct X
{
X() noexcept;
~X() noexcept(false);
};
static_assert( noexcept( X() ), "fails because of ~X" );
static_assert( noexcept(new (nu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #7 from Daniel Krügler
2011-12-09 15:57:15 UTC ---
Please note that this issue here is a simply a dup of bug 51295, which is a
compiler defect and *not* a library problem. See [class.dtor] p3:
"A declaration of a destructor that does
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
19:03:30 UTC ---
c++std-lib-30708 has Daniel's explanation of his interpretation, as implemented
in GCC.
FWIW I prefer your interpretation, but will peace Daniel to comment further
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #5 from d...@boost-consulting.com 2011-12-07 18:41:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think this is by design, see the thread beginning with c++std-lib-30698
>
> I've been surprised by that reasoning several times e.g.
> http://gc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
17:38:39 UTC ---
yes, I keep forgetting that noexcept should be implied on dtors now
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler at
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-07
17:16:58 UTC ---
I think this is by design, see the thread beginning with c++std-lib-30698
I've been surprised by that reasoning several times e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-11/msg00015.ht
13 matches
Mail list logo
