From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10637 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 04:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10622 invoked by uid 71); 23 Apr 2003 04:26:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030423042601.10621.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Jason Merrill Subject: Re: c++/10457: exception specs vs. -fno-enforce-eh-specs Reply-To: Jason Merrill X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00954.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/10457; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Jason Merrill To: Cc: bkoz@redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/10457: exception specs vs. -fno-enforce-eh-specs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 05:13:14 +0100 You were right when you said that your testcase is ill-formed. The errors g++ is giving are correct, per 15.4p3. I suppose that, as an extension, if a derived function has a looser exception specification we could clobber it with the one from the base class and give a pedwarn. But that seems ugly to me. Jason