This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/50043] [C++0x] Implement core/1123
- From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:59:05 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/50043] [C++0x] Implement core/1123
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50043-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2012-03-23
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-03-23 17:59:05 UTC ---
I'm making some progress understanding these parts of the front-end.
For example the following trivial patchlet passes the testcase ;) But,
seriously, I'm not sure whether we really need a full fledged
build_exception_variant, whether we have to do something about LAZY_* things,
and much, much, more.
Index: class.c
===================================================================
--- class.c (revision 185722)
+++ class.c (working copy)
@@ -1001,6 +1001,10 @@ add_method (tree type, tree method, tree using_dec
"destructor",
type);
}
+ else if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x
+ && !TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (method)))
+ TREE_TYPE (method) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (method),
+ noexcept_true_spec);
}
else
{