| Message ID | 20181130230529.1499-1-xerofoify@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add missing noexpect causes in tuple for move functions | expand |
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 01:05, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote: > > This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause > to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here: > http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899. I don't see how this change is sufficient; the noexcept-specs need to be added to tuple's special member functions, not just to _Tuple_impl, and your suggested patch contains no tests.
On 2018-11-30 6:12 p.m., Ville Voutilainen wrote: > On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 01:05, Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause >> to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here: >> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899. > > I don't see how this change is sufficient; the noexcept-specs need to > be added to tuple's > special member functions, not just to _Tuple_impl, and your suggested > patch contains no > tests. > It was tested I just didn't mention that as it was assumed, that's my mistake and sorry for that. This was more just to make sure that this is fine. If you would prefer I send a patch cleaning it up for all the classes i.e. tuple, and it's version's that's fine. I just want to ask do you want a patch or a series will each patch touching one of the tuple clases as I assume your the maintainer. Cheers, Nick
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple index 56b97c25eed..d17512a1b7e 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple @@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION enable_if<sizeof...(_Tail) == sizeof...(_UTail)>::type> explicit constexpr _Tuple_impl(_UHead&& __head, _UTail&&... __tail) + noexcept(__and_<is_nothrow_move_constructible<_Head>, + is_nothrow_move_constructible<_Inherited>>::value) : _Inherited(std::forward<_UTail>(__tail)...), _Base(std::forward<_UHead>(__head)) { } @@ -237,6 +239,8 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION template<typename _UHead, typename... _UTails> constexpr _Tuple_impl(_Tuple_impl<_Idx, _UHead, _UTails...>&& __in) + noexcept(__and_<is_nothrow_move_constructible<_Head>, + is_nothrow_move_constructible<_Inherited>>::value) : _Inherited(std::move (_Tuple_impl<_Idx, _UHead, _UTails...>::_M_tail(__in))), _Base(std::forward<_UHead>
This adds the remainging noexcept causes required for this cause to meet the spec as dicussed last year and documented here: http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#2899. Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause <xerofoify@gmail.com> --- libstdc++-v3/include/std/tuple | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)