[Bug c++/79393] [7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- I Noticed both cwg1658 and cwg2336 were voted into dr state. cwg1658: [Moved to DR at the February, 2014 meeting.] cwg2336: [Accepted as a DR at the February, 2019 meeting.] Should that mean both apply to C++11 and before or just c++14 and above?
[Bug c++/79393] [7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #12 from Nathan Sidwell --- Fixed r266188. [C++ DR 2336] virtual dtors, exception specs & abstract classes https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01389.html DR 2336 * cp-tree.h (enum special_function_kind): Add sfk_virtual_destructor. * method.c (type_has_trivial_fn): Add it. (SFK_DTOR_P): Likewise. (synthesized_method_base_walk): Don't check access of vbases of abstract classes when sfk_virtual_destructor. (synthesized_method_walk): Skip vbases of abstract classes except when sfk_virtual_destructor. (get_defaulted_eh_spec): Set sfk_virtual_destructor as needed. * g++.dg/cpp1y/pr79393-3.C: New.
[Bug c++/79393] [7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #11 from Nathan Sidwell --- Is 2336 now has a proposed solution.
[Bug c++/79393] [7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 --- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini --- Should this show up as a P1?
[Bug c++/79393] [7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus rejects valid code with noexcept
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79393 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.0 |9.0 Summary|[7/8 Regression] cc1plus|[7/8/9 Regression] cc1plus |rejects valid code with |rejects valid code with |noexcept|noexcept --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- If it isn't yet a filed DR, it will be hardly resolved by GCC8 time, so defering till GCC9.