Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57645

2013-06-28 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 06/28/2013 08:58 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 06/28/2013 12:58 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: If you like, this is the rationale behind my last patch: save its current value, set it only to force a thorough deduce_noexcept_on_destructor on everything (admittedly, I don't understand all the deta

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57645

2013-06-28 Thread Jason Merrill
On 06/28/2013 12:58 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: If you like, this is the rationale behind my last patch: save its current value, set it only to force a thorough deduce_noexcept_on_destructor on everything (admittedly, I don't understand all the details of this), and then restore it, don't fiddle at

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57645

2013-06-28 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi, On 06/28/2013 02:52 AM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 06/19/2013 08:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: If, in check_bases_and_members, I simply move deduce_noexcept_on_destructors after check_methods and nothing else, all the new testcases are fine + the tests added for Core/1123, but there are regressi

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57645

2013-06-27 Thread Jason Merrill
On 06/19/2013 08:22 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: If, in check_bases_and_members, I simply move deduce_noexcept_on_destructors after check_methods and nothing else, all the new testcases are fine + the tests added for Core/1123, but there are regressions, for example for testcases involving virtual de

Re: [C++ Patch] PR 57645

2013-06-19 Thread Paolo Carlini
Hi again, On 06/19/2013 03:37 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, when I implemented Core/1123 "Destructors should be noexcept by default", unfortunately I caused this regression, present now in mainline and 4_8-branch. When the destructor is user provided, with no exception specifications, and t