[Bug libstdc++/57505] New: [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

[Bug libstdc++/57505] New: [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

[f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57505

            Bug ID: 57505
           Summary: [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: libstdc++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de

Created attachment 30243
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30243&action=edit
Test case

According to
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function/~function, the
destructor of std::function, like all standard destructors, should be noexcept,
but as the attached test case shows, it isn't so:

% g++-4.7 -std=c++11 test.cpp 
test.cpp:4:1: error: static assertion failed: ~function is not noexcept

[Bug libstdc++/57505] [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

[f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57505

--- Comment #1 from Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de> ---
Created attachment 30244
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30244&action=edit
Test case for enable_shared_from_this

The same applies to std::enable_shared_from_this.

[Bug libstdc++/57505] [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

[daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8", Size: 2688 bytes --]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57505

--- Comment #2 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> ---
This is fixed in gcc 4.9 trunk and I believe it has already been fixed in gcc
4.8 due to bug #50043.
>From gcc-bugs-return-423677-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Jun 02 17:32:56 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-423677-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2956 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2013 17:32:55 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2911 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jun 2013 17:32:45 -0000
From: "gjl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/57503] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Expand uses wrong multiply routine
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 17:32:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-57503-4-cklP6qYvQw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57503-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57503-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2
Content-length: 642

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW503

--- Comment #4 from Georg-Johann Lay <gjl at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 30245
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id0245&actioníit
cecky2.c: More test case

(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> I thought this was fixed for 4.8 by bug 54295.

My 4.8 is dated some days before the release candidate, around 2013-03-06.  If
I understand correctly, that 4.8.0 (experimental) contains the fix for PR54295
but still generates wrong code?

And I don't see a backport to 4.7.

Thus the fix for PR54295 is not complete, or this is an other, unrelated
problem.

[Bug libstdc++/57505] [C++11] destructor of std::function should be noexcept

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57505

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0

--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, this is already fixed.