https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95860
Bug ID: 95860
Summary: Wrong "looser exception specification" when a class
has 2 prospective destructors.
Product: gcc
Version: 10.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: okannen at gmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Tested with gcc --version:
gcc (GCC) 10.1.1 20200613
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The following code should compile:
struct A {
virtual ~A() =default;
};
template <bool C>
struct B
:A
{
~ B() =default; //destructor 1
~ B() requires (C) =default; //destructor 2
};
int main(){
B<true> b;
}
The destructor of B<true> is the "destrurcor 2". Nevertheless, GCC complains
that "destructor 1" has a looser exception specification than the base
destructor:
test.cpp: In instantiation of ‘struct B<true>’:
test.cpp:144:10: required from here
test.cpp:138:2: error: looser exception specification on overriding virtual
function ‘B<C>::~B() [with bool C = true]’
138 | ~ B() =default;
| ^
test.cpp:131:10: note: overridden function is ‘virtual constexpr A::~A()
noexcept’
131 | virtual ~A() =default;
| ^
