On 02/08/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Perhaps the defect is in the standard. Will you email core about it?
Correct, done.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 09:33 AM, Tim Song wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>> 'potentially constructed subobject' appears to be a term without
>>> definition.
>>
>> [special]/5:
>>
>> For a class, its non-static dat
On 02/08/2017 09:33 AM, Tim Song wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
'potentially constructed subobject' appears to be a term without definition.
[special]/5:
For a class, its non-static data members, its non-virtual direct base
classes, and, if the class is not ab
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> 'potentially constructed subobject' appears to be a term without definition.
[special]/5:
For a class, its non-static data members, its non-virtual direct base
classes, and, if the class is not abstract, its virtual base classes
are call
This patch fixes 79393, but I'm not 100% sure it's right.
[15.4]/8 says:
'The exception specification for an implicitly-declared destructor, or a
destructor without a noexcept-specifier, is potentially-throwing if and
only if any of the destructors for any of its potentially constructed
suboje
