This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Yes, If I remove that check, then we hit that gcc_assert for:On 03/28/2012 06:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:I seem to remember something going wrong with templates otherwise, because implicitly_declare_fn has gcc_assert (!dependent_type_p (type)); I don't know if that rings a bell to you... I'll double check anyway.+ /* 12.4/3 */ + if (cxx_dialect>= cxx0x + && DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (decl) + && TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (old_decl))) + deduce_noexcept_on_destructor (decl);
The exception specification on old_decl doesn't matter; we can drop that test.
template<typename T> struct A { ~A(); };
template<typename T> A<T>::~A() { }
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |