On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alexander Kornienko via Phabricator <revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > 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.
Yes, in light of this, I agree. ~Aaron > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D34002 > > > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
