This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: testsuite allocators patch
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
- To: François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:55:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: testsuite allocators patch
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53A49B7C dot 5080506 at gmail dot com> <53AB276F dot 10806 at gmail dot com> <20140626103353 dot GA1725 at redhat dot com> <53AC8678 dot 5060706 at gmail dot com> <53AC8ED5 dot 3070000 at oracle dot com> <20140626223858 dot GK2711 at redhat dot com> <53AD1CCC dot 2010309 at oracle dot com> <CAH6eHdSBk9t4JR1pRLXve5f8espKBFhF+QcDhXeeCSNFFsTy0Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <53ADCA79 dot 2090007 at oracle dot com> <53D01C0B dot 2030203 at gmail dot com>
On 23/07/14 22:33 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
I have a small question regarding some code next to the one I am
modifying in this patch. I can see lines like:
propagating_allocator() noexcept = default;
When using a default implementation shouldn't we let the compiler
decide if it should be noexcept or not depending on the member fields
or base class default constructors ?
Stating it explicitly means you get an error if the default
implementation is not noexcept. That can be useful, to ensure you
don't silently start getting a throwing constructor by mistake because
of a change to a base class.
I'm not sure if I added the noexcept above, but if I did that might
have been what I was intending it to do. I don't remember.
I'll review the rest of the patch ASAP. Did you test it with no other
changes in your tree, and run the entire testsuite?