On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:30:27AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 7/7/21 9:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > It sounds plausible that this assert
> >
> >int f();
> >static_assert(noexcept(sizeof(f(;
> >
> > should pass: sizeof produces a std::size_t and its operand is not
> > evaluate
On 7/7/21 9:40 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
It sounds plausible that this assert
int f();
static_assert(noexcept(sizeof(f(;
should pass: sizeof produces a std::size_t and its operand is not
evaluated, so it can't throw. noexcept should only evaluate to
false for potentially evaluated ope
It sounds plausible that this assert
int f();
static_assert(noexcept(sizeof(f(;
should pass: sizeof produces a std::size_t and its operand is not
evaluated, so it can't throw. noexcept should only evaluate to
false for potentially evaluated operands. Therefore I think that
check_noexcep
