Re: C++ PATCH to resolve LWG issue 1265

2013-10-25 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:39:58PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 10/23/2013 09:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > >The second hunk adds %X for printing an exception-specification in > >diagnostics. > > In my experience these convenience %? that we have got easily > trigger warnings during bootstrap/

Re: C++ PATCH to resolve LWG issue 1265

2013-10-25 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 10/23/2013 09:16 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The second hunk adds %X for printing an exception-specification in diagnostics. In my experience these convenience %? that we have got easily trigger warnings during bootstrap/build, eg: /scratch/Gcc/svn-dirs/trunk/gcc/cp/error.c:3302:53: war

C++ PATCH to resolve LWG issue 1265

2013-10-23 Thread Jason Merrill
LWG 2165, submitted by Jonathan, argues that declaring a defaulted constructor noexcept should not be ill-formed if the implicitly- declared constructor would not be noexcept. At the Chicago meeting, CWG agreed. This patch makes it deleted instead. The second hunk adds %X for printing an exce