===================================================================
@@ -1755,6 +1755,7 @@ defaulted_late_check (tree fn)
bool fn_const_p = (copy_fn_p (fn) == 2);
tree implicit_fn = implicitly_declare_fn (kind, ctx, fn_const_p,
NULL, NULL);
+ tree eh_spec = TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (implicit_fn));
if (!same_type_p (TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (fn)),
TREE_TYPE (TREE_TYPE (implicit_fn)))
@@ -1766,33 +1767,42 @@ defaulted_late_check (tree fn)
"does not match expected signature %qD", implicit_fn);
}
- /* 8.4.2/2: If it is explicitly defaulted on its first declaration, it is
+ /* 8.4.2/2: An explicitly-defaulted function (...) may have an explicit
+ exception-specification only if it is compatible (15.4) with the
+ exception-specification on the implicit declaration. If a function
+ is explicitly defaulted on its first declaration, (...) it is
implicitly considered to have the same exception-specification as if
it had been implicitly declared. */
- if (DECL_DEFAULTED_IN_CLASS_P (fn))
+ if (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (fn)))
{
- tree eh_spec = TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (implicit_fn));
- if (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (fn)))
+ maybe_instantiate_noexcept (fn);
+ if (!comp_except_specs (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (fn)),
+ eh_spec, ce_normal))
{
- maybe_instantiate_noexcept (fn);
- if (!comp_except_specs (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (fn)),
- eh_spec, ce_normal))
+ if (DECL_DEFAULTED_IN_CLASS_P (fn))
error ("function %q+D defaulted on its first declaration "
"with an exception-specification that differs from "
"the implicit declaration %q#D", fn, implicit_fn);
+ else
+ error ("function %q+D defaulted on its redeclaration "
+ "with an exception-specification that differs from "
+ "the implicit declaration %q#D", fn, implicit_fn);
}
- TREE_TYPE (fn) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (fn), eh_spec);
- if (DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (implicit_fn))
- {
- /* Hmm...should we do this for out-of-class too? Should it be OK to
- add constexpr later like inline, rather than requiring
- declarations to match? */
- DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn) = true;
- if (kind == sfk_constructor)
- TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR (ctx) = true;
- }
}
+ if (DECL_DEFAULTED_IN_CLASS_P (fn))
+ TREE_TYPE (fn) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (fn), eh_spec);
+ if (DECL_DEFAULTED_IN_CLASS_P (fn)
+ && DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (implicit_fn))
+ {
+ /* Hmm...should we do this for out-of-class too? Should it be OK to
+ add constexpr later like inline, rather than requiring
+ declarations to match? */
+ DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn) = true;
+ if (kind == sfk_constructor)
+ TYPE_HAS_CONSTEXPR_CTOR (ctx) = true;
+ }
+
if (!DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (implicit_fn)
&& DECL_DECLARED_CONSTEXPR_P (fn))
{
===================================================================
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+// PR c++/53903
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct T
+{
+ T() noexcept(false) { }
+ ~T() noexcept(false) { }
+};
+
+struct A
+{
+ A() noexcept;
+ ~A() noexcept;
+
+ T t;
+};
+
+A::A() noexcept = default; // { dg-error "defaulted" }
+A::~A() noexcept = default; // { dg-error "defaulted" }
+
+struct U
+{
+ U() noexcept(false) { }
+ ~U() noexcept(false) { }
+};
+
+struct B
+{
+ B() noexcept(false);
+ ~B() noexcept(false);
+
+ U u;
+};
+
+B::B() noexcept(false) = default;
+B::~B() noexcept(false) = default;
+
+struct V
+{
+ V() noexcept(false) { }
+ ~V() noexcept(false) { }
+};
+
+struct C
+{
+ C() noexcept = default; // { dg-error "defaulted" }
+ ~C() noexcept = default; // { dg-error "defaulted" }
+
+ V v;
+};