public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/96090] noexcept operator of potentially-throwing defaulted function gives the wrong result Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 02:34:30 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-96090-4-VprtOjTngV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-96090-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96090 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The master branch has been updated by Nathaniel Shead <nshead@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4719b6f5ae4d758f193a17bbd5fb6cbacd702a23 commit r14-6395-g4719b6f5ae4d758f193a17bbd5fb6cbacd702a23 Author: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com> Date: Sat Oct 28 16:04:52 2023 +1100 c++: Fix noexcept checking for trivial operations [PR96090] This patch stops eager folding of trivial operations (construction and assignment) from occurring when checking for noexceptness. This was previously done in PR c++/53025, but only for copy/move construction, and the __is_nothrow_xible builtins did not receive the same treatment when they were added. To handle `is_nothrow_default_constructible`, the patch also ensures that when no parameters are passed we do value initialisation instead of just building the constructor call: in particular, value-initialisation doesn't necessarily actually invoke the constructor for trivial default constructors, and so we need to handle this case as well. This is contrary to the proposed resolution of CWG2820; for now we just ensure it matches the behaviour of the `noexcept` operator and create testcases formalising this, and if that issue gets accepted we can revisit. PR c++/96090 PR c++/100470 gcc/cp/ChangeLog: * call.cc (build_over_call): Prevent folding of trivial special members when checking for noexcept. * method.cc (constructible_expr): Perform value-initialisation for empty parameter lists. (is_nothrow_xible): Treat as noexcept operator. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept81.C: New test. * g++.dg/ext/is_nothrow_constructible7.C: New test. * g++.dg/ext/is_nothrow_constructible8.C: New test. Signed-off-by: Nathaniel Shead <nathanieloshead@gmail.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-11 2:34 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-07-07 0:22 [Bug c++/96090] New: Inconsistent querying of differring exception specifications of explicitly defaulted functions johelegp at gmail dot com 2020-07-07 7:25 ` [Bug c++/96090] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-08-29 0:17 ` [Bug c++/96090] noexcept operator of potentially-throwing defaulted function gives the wrong result johelegp at gmail dot com 2023-10-28 8:23 ` nathanieloshead at gmail dot com 2023-12-11 2:34 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2024-02-06 14:42 ` mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-96090-4-VprtOjTngV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).