Hi,
On 10/02/2014 07:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/02/2014 12:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ s->noexcept_operand = scope_chain ? cp_noexcept_operand : 0;
s->x_stmt_tree.stmts_are_full_exprs_p = true;
scope_chain = s;
@@ -6182,6 +6183,7 @@ pop_from_top_level_1 (void)
current_fun
On 10/02/2014 12:44 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+ s->noexcept_operand = scope_chain ? cp_noexcept_operand : 0;
s->x_stmt_tree.stmts_are_full_exprs_p = true;
scope_chain = s;
@@ -6182,6 +6183,7 @@ pop_from_top_level_1 (void)
current_function_decl = s->function_decl;
cp_unevaluated_o
Hi,
On 10/02/2014 04:26 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/02/2014 08:11 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+/* Nonzero if we are parsing the operand of a noexcept operator. */
+
+extern int cp_noexcept_operand;
Rather than add a global variable, let's look it up in scope_chain
directly, like current_nam
On 10/02/2014 08:11 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
+/* Nonzero if we are parsing the operand of a noexcept operator. */
+
+extern int cp_noexcept_operand;
Rather than add a global variable, let's look it up in scope_chain
directly, like current_namespace and such.
Jason
Hi,
On 10/02/2014 05:22 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/01/2014 12:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
in this issue Daniel argued that the value of a noexcept expression
should not depend on constructor elision.
I'm open to that, but I don't think it's at all clear in the standard.
Ok. Personally, I
On 10/01/2014 12:31 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
in this issue Daniel argued that the value of a noexcept expression
should not depend on constructor elision.
I'm open to that, but I don't think it's at all clear in the standard.
Then, in the audit trail Marc
tentatively suggested something like
Hi,
in this issue Daniel argued that the value of a noexcept expression
should not depend on constructor elision. Then, in the audit trail Marc
tentatively suggested something like the parser.c hunk below, which just
disables our -felide-constructors optimization when parsing the noexcept
exp
