This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3] More noexcept -- 3rd
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:29:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [v3] More noexcept -- 3rd
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1309181725480 dot 10748 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <5239CE37 dot 3050103 at oracle dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1309181808460 dot 4735 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
On 18 September 2013 17:27, Marc Glisse <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
>>> understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for
>>> functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
>>> _GLIBCXX_THROW_OR_ABORT is suspicious. In any case, I am not changing
>>> with my patch.
>> If I remember correctly, somebody invented that mild hack and suggested it
>> to indeed have a check as part of a constexpr function, not a trivial task.
>> Jon participated to that discussion. After a while I resurrected that old
>> discussion, tested the code and it appeared to work well. In practice, are
>> you experiencing specific problems with it?
> No, no problem. For some reason I thought there would be issues when the
> macro expands to __builtin_abort(), but there aren't, great.
> Any other comments on the patch? (Jon's "great" doesn't really sound like an
It wasn't, as I hadn't reviewed the patch at that time, but I sent
another mail with an "ok" after reading it :)