On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 22:23, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 27 August 2024 10:29:05 GMT-7 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 17:15, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> > wrote: > > > The point is that this putative mistake has no consequences, today. It > > > remains to be seen whether it will with contracts, when those come. When > > > contracts come, if those noexcept are a problem, then both libc++ and > > > libstdc++ will deploy a solution, which should suffice for us too. Until > > > then, I don't see a reason to deprive ourselves of any potential benefits > > > that the noexcept might bring. > > > > What benefits? > > TBH, it's actually very little. But little is not zero. > > For the direct use of simple and not-so-simple inline functions, probably > none. The compiler is good at seeing no exceptions are actually thrown. > > It starts to get interesting for code that checks on the noexceptness of the > content it's calling and use different algorithms. There aren't a lot of those > outside of container copy, but they do exist.
Just checking.. is that a typo? Do you mean container _move_? That's by far the most significant case. And if you're using vector::operator[] there, you're doing something seriously questionable. -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
