On 18 September 2013 17:00, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> some more containers...
Great, thanks for working your way through all these!
>> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
>> understand correctly
On 18 September 2013 17:27, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>>
>>> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
>>> understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for
>>> conste
Hi,
On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
Hello,
some more containers...
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for
constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCXX_T
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 09/18/2013 05:51 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCX
On 18 September 2013 16:51, Marc Glisse wrote:
> Hello,
>
> some more containers...
>
> In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
> understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
> functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
> _
Hello,
some more containers...
In debug array, we already have throw in noexcept functions, but if I
understand correctly it is only because of syntax limitations for constexpr
functions and aborts before throwing, although the use of
_GLIBCXX_THROW_OR_ABORT is suspicious. In any case, I am not
