https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90992
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
--- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Note that the patch doesn't address the original complaint, which was that we
shouldn't say that Automatic::Automatic(size_t) could be noexcept when it calls
NotNoexcept() which is noexcept(false).
But the diagnostic is correct when it says that the constructor does not throw;
since we can see the definition of NotNoexcept(), we can tell that even though
it is declared noexcept(false), it in fact does not throw. So I don't think
that the attached minimal testcase shows an actual false positive.
