On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Paolo Carlini wrote:
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?
If you use "if(noexcept(container.shrink_to_fit()))", you can easily cause
d
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, besid
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
.. first blush, I think we have to remove the noexcept from the
non-const forms of begin and end and from clear. Because the string can
be shared...
Thanks,
Paolo.
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
