http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16638
Richard Smith <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Richard Smith <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #7) > I'll file a DR against section 3.7, but clang should mark these as noexcept. This is already covered by core issue 1552; clang already marks these as 'noexcept'. The question is, is the exception specification implicit or explicit? If it's implicit, then void operator delete(void*) noexcept; is ill-formed. If it's explicit, then void operator delete(void*); is ill-formed (even though it's implicitly noexcept). Both of these patterns appear in real code. Clang currently diagnoses the former and not the latter, which is the opposite of the committee's intention, but either way we're going to upset someone. Fixed in r201002. We'll have to see if this breaks people enough that we need to turn off the ExtWarn by default. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
