[v3] More noexcept -- 5th

[Paolo Carlini]

On 09/20/2013 04:09 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
>> On 09/20/2013 09:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> for basic_string, I tried not to add lies about exceptions, but I 
>>> didn't
>>> remove existing ones.
>> 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?
>
> 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...
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!

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?

Thanks,
Paolo.