From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5462 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2012 18:18:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 5450 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2012 18:18:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:17:58 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51296] Several 30_threads tests FAIL on Tru64 UNIX Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:18:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-01/txt/msg01414.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51296 --- Comment #23 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-01-12 18:17:56 UTC --- > Does adding 'noexcept' to ~__mutex_base() make that hack unnecessary? > > The destructor should be implicitly noexcept, but G++ doesn't implement that > yet (PR 50043) so adding 'noexcept' there is ok. Yep, that does the trick. Rainer