This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3] More noexcept -- 5th
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Marc Glisse <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:16:14 +0200
- Subject: Re: [v3] More noexcept -- 5th
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 02 dot 1309200904020 dot 10363 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr> <523C3B4B dot 6050209 at oracle dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1309201602350 dot 20836 at stedding dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
On 09/20/2013 04:09 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Ok It's fine like that, and thank you for doing the work, please also
add a one-line comment before the noexcept you remove explaining that we
are non-conforming in not having those decorations but that's life until
we get rid of the reference-counted implementation. Thanks again!
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/20/2013 09:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Of course we should not have lies, I thought we didn't, besides maybe
special cases having to do with the FULLY_DYNAMIC string thing,
really a C++98 legacy wa, which will not exist in the future. Can you
please send an updated patch fixing those?
for basic_string, I tried not to add lies about exceptions, but I
remove existing ones.
Would you mind if we did that as a separate follow-up patch, unless
there are other problems with the patch? One is adding noexcept for
optimization, the other one would be removing some (no intersection)
for correctness. I'll do it this WE. I'll also need to remove the
corresponding noexcept from debug/profile mode...
By the way, I would be curious at some point to actually see with my
eyes the effect of those optimizations in the assembly: is it easy to
produce examples? Even at say -O2?