https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 8 08:13:50 2019
New Revision: 270201
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270201&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
/cp
2019-04-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/89914
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|paolo.carlin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini ---
This is what I meant in code. Passes testing.
Index: semantics.c
===
--- semantics.c (revision 270062)
+++ semantics.c (working copy)
@@ -9548,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
There are a couple of places in semantics.c where we call
maybe_instantiate_noexcept and then, without checking that it returns true, we
proceed to use TYPE_NOTHROW_P, which expands to nothrow_spec_p. I think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89914
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
