Re: Possible to declare move constructor of basic_symbol as noexcept?

I meant potentially throwing destructor* (is a bad thing to do) On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 4:40 AM Adrian wrote: > > Hi Akim, > > Yes, that was what I was referring to. Since > basic_symbol(basic_symbol&&) calls semantic_type::move, a concern > is if that might throw. But I checked semantic_type::mov

Re: GLR causing warning about _Noreturn in C99

Akim Demaille wrote: > Thanks for the report. No problem. Looks like I should have posted it to the bug-bison list though, rather than here. Oops. > > /* The _Noreturn keyword of C11. */ > > #ifndef _Noreturn > > ... > > This piece of code comes from gnulib (well, it was copied-past

Re: Possible to declare move constructor of basic_symbol as noexcept?

Hi Akim, Yes, that was what I was referring to. Since basic_symbol(basic_symbol&&) calls semantic_type::move, a concern is if that might throw. But I checked semantic_type::move calls semantic_type::emplace which is what calls the constructor, semantic_type::as which is already declared noexcept,