On 03/29/2012 09:27 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 03/29/2012 03:06 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The exception specification on old_decl doesn't matter; we can drop
that test.
I seem to remember something going wrong with templates otherwise,
because implicitly_declare_fn has gcc_assert (!dependent_type_p (type));
We shouldn't be doing this for templates anyway, as in general we
can't know what the implicitly declared function will look like.
Can you suggest a robust way to achieve that? I remained stuck a lot
because of this, to make sure that the latter testcase and:
template<typename T>
struct A
{
~A() noexcept;
};
template<typename T>
A<T>::~A() { }
both work.
Thanks,
Paolo.
