alexfh added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34002#776193, @chh wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D34002#775830, @alexfh wrote: > > > IIUC, when `vector<T>` (for a class `T` that has both move and copy > > constructors) resizes, it will prefer move constructors, but only if > > they're declared `noexcept`. This is true even if `-fno-exceptions` is on. > > So I don't think this check should depend on `-fno-exceptions`. > > > Should the compiler assume `noexcept` when -fno-exceptions is on? > That means move constructors should be preferred under -fno-exceptions, and > this check would be unnecessary, right? The compiler doesn't assume `noexcept` and I heard from competent people the reasons why it shouldn't, though I can't immediately recall these reasons. I think, the patch should be reverted. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34002 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
