C++ no except updates

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 07/05/19 12:48 -0400, nick wrote:
>
>
>On 2019-05-07 5:45 a.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Removing the gcc@ list, as there's no need to cross-post this to two
>> lists.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/19 00:17 -0400, nick wrote:
>>> Jonathan,
>>>
>>> I don't know what work is remaining in my ideas with inlining r value functions as you
>>
>> I don't know what work you're referring to.
>>
>If I recall that was done with the C++20 filesystem and perhaps new networking
>classes. You sent a patch to the list if I recall.
>
>> If you mean https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg02618.html
>> then that patch was simply wrong, and not needed.
>>
>>> seemed to have already taken up and probably finished my ideas from reading the list.
>>> If you want help finishing it just send me a ToDO of since C++11 and C++20 classes have
>>> not been made noexcept for the move constructor and assignment operator.
>>
>> I'm not going to perform such an audit for you. The types I'm aware of
>> that have potentially throwing moves are like that for a reason, and
>> need to stay that way.
>>
>>
>No of course not this was your actually wording,
>
>We'll consider any patches that add noexcept appropriately.

Ah so that's the thread you're talking about. You said:

"Anyhow seems that the tuple and other
classes mentioned aren't the only only ones that could do noexpect
optimization either for all cases or some in the header files."

It's hard to know what your "ideas with inlining r value functions"
are from this, it's a bit vague.

The following revisions added noexcept in the past few months:
r270632, r270501, r270175, r270173, r268713, r267865, r267235, r267106

If you think it should be added elsewhere please send patches.