On 03/01/20 22:04 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
This is the patch to extend PR 92124 to the associative containers.
As it is pretty simple I thought it could maybe go in now.
I also think that the existing 92124 tests are not really testing what
they should with the move assignment operators noexcept qualified, no
?
PR libstdc++/92124
* include/bits/stl_tree.h
(_Rb_tree<>::_M_move_assign(_Rb_tree&, false_type)): Replace
std::move_if_noexcept by std::move.
* testsuite/23_containers/deque/92124.cc
(X::operator==(X&&)): Qualify noexcept(false).
* testsuite/23_containers/forward_list/92124.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/23_containers/list/92124.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/23_containers/vector/92124.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/23_containers/map/92124.cc: New.
* testsuite/23_containers/set/92124.cc: New.
Tested under linux x86_64.
François
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
index 12ba3181dd9..9339011e872 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_tree.h
@@ -1695,7 +1695,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
[&__roan](const value_type& __cval)
{
auto& __val = const_cast<value_type&>(__cval);
- return __roan(std::move_if_noexcept(__val));
+ return __roan(std::move(__val));
This part is OK and so is the new test.
};
_M_root() = _M_copy(__x, __lbd);
__x.clear();
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/92124.cc
b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/92124.cc
index 0bdfcb70dcf..ea16d415a49 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/92124.cc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/23_containers/deque/92124.cc
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ struct X {
// Tracking calls to assignment functions
X& operator=(const X&) { throw 1; }
- X& operator=(X&&) noexcept(true) { return *this; }
+ X& operator=(X&&) noexcept(false) { return *this; }
These changes don't seem to be needed. Is there a reason to change it?
