Launchpad has imported 15 comments from the remote bug at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-08-11T09:23:21+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: ... let's try this new Bugzilla ;) This is an internal reminder that it would be nice to have implemented quite soon the resolution of core/1123: http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1123 For sure the library would immediately benefit, no more explicitly noexcept destructors in a lot of places. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-02-21T11:51:14+00:00 Mimomorin wrote: Created attachment 26711 A testcase for N3204 Attached a testcase for N3204 ;) Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-02-21T12:05:40+00:00 Redi wrote: We don't want front-end testcases that rely on <iostream> and need to check what gets printed. A better test would use static_assert, but would also test cases with both throwing and non-throwing base class and members. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-02-22T02:43:30+00:00 Mimomorin wrote: Created attachment 26721 A updated testcase OK, here is a take two! Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-23T01:05:26+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Jason, I'm glad to work on this (if you don't have anything better to do ;) Any tips for me? Shouldn't be so hard but I'm still a bit lost... Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-23T01:07:00+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Of course I meant "if you have something better to do ;)" Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-23T17:59:05+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: I'm making some progress understanding these parts of the front-end. For example the following trivial patchlet passes the testcase ;) But, seriously, I'm not sure whether we really need a full fledged build_exception_variant, whether we have to do something about LAZY_* things, and much, much, more. Index: class.c =================================================================== --- class.c (revision 185722) +++ class.c (working copy) @@ -1001,6 +1001,10 @@ add_method (tree type, tree method, tree using_dec "destructor", type); } + else if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x + && !TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (method))) + TREE_TYPE (method) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (method), + noexcept_true_spec); } else { Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-23T18:17:56+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: This doesn't compile, for example: struct B { ~B(); }; B::~B() { } Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-03-23T22:48:59+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: The latter issue could be addressed by something like: Index: decl.c =================================================================== --- decl.c (revision 185715) +++ decl.c (working copy) @@ -1136,7 +1136,10 @@ check_redeclaration_exception_specification (tree if ((pedantic || ! DECL_IN_SYSTEM_HEADER (old_decl)) && ! DECL_IS_BUILTIN (old_decl) && flag_exceptions - && !comp_except_specs (new_exceptions, old_exceptions, ce_normal)) + && !comp_except_specs (new_exceptions, old_exceptions, ce_normal) + && !(DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (new_decl) + && cxx_dialect >= cxx0x + && !new_exceptions && TYPE_NOEXCEPT_P (old_type))) { error ("declaration of %qF has a different exception specifier", new_decl); Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-04-02T00:13:35+00:00 Paolo-k wrote: Author: paolo Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012 New Revision: 186058 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058 Log: /cp 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> PR c++/50043 * class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New. (check_bases_and_members): Call the latter. * decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former. * method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static. * cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn): Declare /testsuite 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> PR c++/50043 * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New. * g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust. * g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C Modified: trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/class.c trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c trunk/gcc/cp/method.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-04-02T00:19:43+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: Done. Library clean-ups will follow. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-04-12T00:10:26+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote: *** Bug 51295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-06-11T10:28:40+00:00 Redi wrote: *** Bug 53613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/12 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-06-13T03:48:34+00:00 Kirbyzhou wrote: How about back port this patch to 4.7 branch? It cause a lot of compile error which easily confuse programmers. (In reply to comment #9) > Author: paolo > Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012 > New Revision: 186058 > > URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058 > Log: > /cp > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > > PR c++/50043 > * class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, > deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New. > (check_bases_and_members): Call the latter. > * decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former. > * method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static. > * cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn): > Declare > > /testsuite > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > > PR c++/50043 > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New. > * g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust. > * g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise. > * g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise. > > Added: > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C > Modified: > trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog > trunk/gcc/cp/class.c > trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h > trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c > trunk/gcc/cp/method.c > trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2012-06-15T02:14:48+00:00 Kirbyzhou wrote: I have tested to apply this patch to 4.7 branch, everythings goes well. Since it breaks already existing code, anybody can do commit backport to 4.7 branch? (In reply to comment #13) > How about back port this patch to 4.7 branch? > It cause a lot of compile error which easily confuse programmers. > (In reply to comment #9) > > Author: paolo > > Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012 > > New Revision: 186058 > > > > URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058 > > Log: > > /cp > > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > > > > PR c++/50043 > > * class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, > > deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New. > > (check_bases_and_members): Call the latter. > > * decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former. > > * method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static. > > * cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn): > > Declare > > > > /testsuite > > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> > > > > PR c++/50043 > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New. > > * g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust. > > * g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise. > > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise. > > * g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise. > > * g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise. > > > > Added: > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C > > Modified: > > trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog > > trunk/gcc/cp/class.c > > trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h > > trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c > > trunk/gcc/cp/method.c > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C > > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1199210/comments/14 ** Changed in: gcc Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: gcc Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1199210 Title: lp:mir FTBFS: surface_info.h:52:13: error: looser throw specifier for ‘virtual mir::input::SurfaceInfoController::~SurfaceInfoController()’ To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/1199210/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
