On 01/17/2017 03:17 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Hmm, what if write_exception_spec checks for a dependent
noexcept-specifier first, and noexcept_spec_p second? That seems like
it would avoid needing any change to nothrow_spec_p.
that's a better solution. However it was easier for it to check for
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Jason,
>> in r241944:
>> 2016-11-07 Jason Merrill
>>
>> Implement P0012R1, Make exception specifications part of the type
>> system.
>>
>> You increment processing_
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Jason,
> in r241944:
> 2016-11-07 Jason Merrill
>
> Implement P0012R1, Make exception specifications part of the type
> system.
>
> You increment processing_template_decl around the mangling of a template
> function decl.
Jason,
in r241944:
2016-11-07 Jason Merrill
Implement P0012R1, Make exception specifications part of the type
system.
You increment processing_template_decl around the mangling of a template
function decl. AFAICT, that's so that nothrow_spec_p doesn't explode at:
gcc_asse
