subject:"\[Bug c\+\+\/89571\] \[9 Regression\] ICE in nothrow_spec

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-20 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-20 Thread paolo at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Mar 21 01:03:30 2019 New Revision: 269832 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269832=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2019-03-21 Paolo Carlini PR c++/89571 *

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-19 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com ---

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-18 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini --- The new ICE in Comment #6 is not fixed by Jason's patch, thus we can't close this one, unless we file a separate bug for that.

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-18 Thread asolokha at gmx dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #8 from Arseny Solokha --- Should this PR be closed now?

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-17 Thread jason at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sun Mar 17 20:07:26 2019 New Revision: 269746 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269746=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/89571 - ICE with ill-formed noexcept on constructor. Earlier

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-16 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 Volker Reichelt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-13 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-05 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini --- Seriously, I spent quite a bit of time today on this issue and, all in all, barring much more invasive changes, I think that not setting *spec_p to error_mark_node when maybe_instantiate_noexcept returns

[Bug c++/89571] [9 Regression] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1238

2019-03-05 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89571 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- I must also add: if we had decided to fix c++/89488 the way I originally proposed https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-02/txtzrb81mYdom.txt we would not have to fix this one too ;)