On 09/20/2013 04:09 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/20/2013 09:46 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
for basic_string, I tried not to add lies about exceptions, but I
didn't
remove existing ones.
Of course we should not have lies, I thought we didn't, besides maybe
special cases having to do with the FULLY_DYNAMIC string thing,
really a C++98 legacy wa, which will not exist in the future. Can you
please send an updated patch fixing those?
Would you mind if we did that as a separate follow-up patch, unless
there are other problems with the patch? One is adding noexcept for
optimization, the other one would be removing some (no intersection)
for correctness. I'll do it this WE. I'll also need to remove the
corresponding noexcept from debug/profile mode...
Ok It's fine like that, and thank you for doing the work, please also
add a one-line comment before the noexcept you remove explaining that we
are non-conforming in not having those decorations but that's life until
we get rid of the reference-counted implementation. Thanks again!
By the way, I would be curious at some point to actually see with my
eyes the effect of those optimizations in the assembly: is it easy to
produce examples? Even at say -O2?
Thanks,
Paolo.
