From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-376485-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18283 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2011 15:57:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 18274 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Dec 2011 15:57:29 -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; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:57:17 +0000
From: "daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51452] has_nothrow_.*constructor bugs
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:00:00 -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: daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51452-4-NaRKXzGMv3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51452-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51452-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg01051.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D51452

--- Comment #7 from Daniel Kr=C3=BCgler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot =
com> 2011-12-09 15:57:15 UTC ---
Please note that this issue here is a simply a dup of bug 51295, which is a
compiler defect and *not* a library problem. See [class.dtor] p3:

"A declaration of a destructor that does not have an exception-specificatio=
n is
implicitly considered to have the same exception-specification as an implic=
it
declaration (15.4)."

I hadn't looked at the actual example until Dave was describing effects on =
the
LWG reflector that are obviously in contradiction to the core language.

I repeat: The test case should be well-formed with the existing
is_constructible definition once the compiler defect is fixed.