On 2/15/24 17:16, Marek Polacek wrote:
Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, ok for trunk?

IMHO trivial enough to go ahead now seeing as it doesn't introduce
new errors.

OK.

-- >8 --
I noticed we don't implement the "unless the overriding function is
defined as deleted" wording added to [except.spec] via CWG 1351.

        DR 1351

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

        * search.cc (maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec): Don't error about
        a looser exception specification if the overrider is deleted.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

        * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C: New test.
---
  gcc/cp/search.cc                        | 11 +++++++++--
  gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C | 14 ++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
  create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C

diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
index 2b4ed5d024e..c948839dc53 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
@@ -1949,7 +1949,11 @@ locate_field_accessor (tree basetype_path, tree 
field_decl, bool const_p)
  }
/* Check throw specifier of OVERRIDER is at least as strict as
-   the one of BASEFN.  */
+   the one of BASEFN.  This is due to [except.spec]: "If a virtual function
+   has a non-throwing exception specification, all declarations, including
+   the definition, of any function that overrides that virtual function in
+   any derived class shall have a non-throwing exception specification,
+   unless the overriding function is defined as deleted."  */
bool
  maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, tree basefn)
@@ -1959,7 +1963,10 @@ maybe_check_overriding_exception_spec (tree overrider, 
tree basefn)
    tree base_throw = TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (basefn));
    tree over_throw = TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (overrider));
- if (DECL_INVALID_OVERRIDER_P (overrider))
+  if (DECL_INVALID_OVERRIDER_P (overrider)
+      /* CWG 1351 added the "unless the overriding function is defined as
+        deleted" wording.  */
+      || DECL_DELETED_FN (overrider))
      return true;
/* Can't check this yet. Pretend this is fine and let
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C 
b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..c996613139b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept82.C
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// DR 1351, Problems with implicitly-declared exception-specifications
+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
+
+struct B {
+  virtual void f() noexcept;
+  virtual void g();
+  virtual void h() noexcept = delete;
+};
+
+struct D: B {
+  void f();                     // { dg-error "looser" }
+  void g() noexcept;            // OK
+  void h() = delete;            // OK
+};

base-commit: 0d5d1c75f5c68b6064640c3154ae5f4c0b464905

Reply via email to