From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1547 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2010 12:00:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 1519 invoked by uid 48); 4 Mar 2010 11:59:47 -0000 Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100304115947.1518.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/21772] exception safety testing In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #23 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-03-04 11:59 ------- I'm analyzing the remaining xfails. About generation_prohibited, for vector and deque, I see the tests failing only on the two forms of erase. But in that case, the Standard (*) says that: "Throws: Nothing unless an exception is thrown by the copy constructor or assignment operator of T.". Thus, I don't think we have a bug. Benjamin, do you have a contrary opinion? Otherwise I'm tempted to take out those erase from generation_prohibited for deque and vector. (*) C++1x as of n3035 is exactly like C++03 here. Of course for now we are not taking into account any subtlety with throwing move constructor and assignment, still being finalized by the Committee. In any case in our library we are not testing yet with moveable types. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21772