On 12/10/2011 12:28 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> patch2: voidify_wrapper_expr wasn't handling MUST_NOT_THROW_EXPR. The
> patch adds a reasonable default handling that applies to this case (and
> this way, we don't need to teach language-independent code about
> MUST_NOT_THROW_EXPR).
>
> patch3: As
Here is the most recent version, which is now based on both Richard
Henderson's fix for voidify_wrapper_expr (patch2) and Jason Merrill's
conditional MUST_NOT_THROW_EXPR (patch3).
patch2: voidify_wrapper_expr wasn't handling MUST_NOT_THROW_EXPR. The
patch adds a reasonable default handling that a
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
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
At this point I think it'd be simpler to handle noexcept in a
transaction-expression directly in cp_parser_transaction_expression.
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-s
This revision of the patch is now complete and passes all the tests I
could come up with. Compared to previous iterations, I added parsing of
noexcept without explicit true/false. This makes
cp_parser_noexcept_specification_opt a bit more complex, but we can now
reuse it.
The other two patches I
