From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20588 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2005 18:12:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20575 invoked by uid 48); 7 Jun 2005 18:12:35 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050607181235.20574.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050607175818.21951.dank@kegel.com> References: <20050607175818.21951.dank@kegel.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/21951] [gcc-4.0 regression, rejects-valid] std::vector.reserve() unusable with -Werror -Wall -O -fno-exceptions X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01123.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-06-07 18:12 ------- > You may retartget this pr to fixing the silliness in libstdc++, if you want. And the "silliness" would be? Personally, I'm finding quite a bit of silliness in this remark, to tell you the truth and indeed, mainline is ok, probably the current compiler judges that "silliness" not so silly, after all. When -fno-exceptions, the catch becomes simply an 'if (false)' and I don't see why the implementors of v3 have necessarily to care about the branch not returning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21951