From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 683DD3857C51; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:01:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 683DD3857C51
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669024902;
	bh=YS6TbHAxOacT4gOBfXOV0HFFd9qf0smclFXtGXeGi5k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Bi1Ri5gNJMiDf7y4irE9vqF064M7PDecQ8uLunH67cgZamG+s1C5c0yeUESjodB+K
	 FoIny2/0xpSm6gUF7NponqQCEa3FkTdYK61T9jxH2KZyP7Rwolhr17LaKri8aMNGEz
	 041hiIddTQ9CFaGn+UDmaYuySzIkL3T+8DPOWOGI=
From: "unlvsur at live dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/107778] handle_contract_violation should reflect
 _GLIBCXX_VERBOSE
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 10:01:40 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: unlvsur at live dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107778-4-cpfWmCrbv8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107778-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107778-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107778

--- Comment #6 from cqwrteur <unlvsur at live dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3)
> > Also why the function is not noexcept?
>=20
> Writing to streams can throw.
>=20
> If you don't like the default handler you can provide your own.

The problem is that the function is still not marked as noexcept and it will
cause serious issues with noexcept functions (like using contracts in
operator[] for example)=