Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25/10/16 21:55 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Indeed, here is the simplified patch. But I will come back to this base type for the next patch to generalize the defaulted constructors and assignment operators. Tested under Linux x86_64, ok to commit ? OK for trunk, thanks.

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-25 Thread François Dumont
On 24/10/2016 13:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12/10/16 22:36 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: Trying again...with a few edits. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont wrote: @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/10/16 22:36 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: Trying again...with a few edits. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont wrote: @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION struct _Rb_tree_impl : public

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-23 Thread François Dumont
Hi I have run all tests with success. Even if it doesn't get rid of _GLIBCXX_NOEXCEPT_IF it still limits it to one place. So is it ok to commit ? François On 12/10/2016 22:36, François Dumont wrote: On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: Trying again...with a few edits. On Mon,

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-12 Thread Tim Song
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:36 PM, François Dumont wrote: > On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: >> >> Trying again...with a few edits. >> >>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont >>> wrote: >>> >>> @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-12 Thread François Dumont
On 10/10/2016 23:01, Tim Song wrote: Trying again...with a few edits. On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont wrote: @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION struct _Rb_tree_impl : public _Node_allocator { _Key_compare

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-10 Thread Tim Song
Trying again...with a few edits. > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 3:24 PM, François Dumont > wrote: > > @@ -602,24 +612,32 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION > struct _Rb_tree_impl : public _Node_allocator > { >_Key_compare _M_key_compare; > -

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-10 Thread François Dumont
On 09/10/2016 17:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/10/16 22:55 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 06/10/2016 23:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute conditional noexcept when defaulting

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 09/10/16 16:14 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 08/10/16 22:55 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 06/10/2016 23:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute conditional noexcept when defaulting

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 08/10/16 22:55 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 06/10/2016 23:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute conditional noexcept when defaulting implementations. This is what I have done in

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-08 Thread François Dumont
On 06/10/2016 23:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute conditional noexcept when defaulting implementations. This is what I have done in this patch. The new default constructor on

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 06/10/16 22:17 +0200, François Dumont wrote: Another approach is to rely on existing compiler ability to compute conditional noexcept when defaulting implementations. This is what I have done in this patch. The new default constructor on _Rb_tree_node_base is not a problem as it is not

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-06 Thread François Dumont
On 05/10/2016 14:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/10/16 14:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I added conditional noexcept to maps and sets, but forgot to account for the comparison function, which could throw when constructed. IMO you are fighting a

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 05/10/16 14:10 +0200, Marc Glisse wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I added conditional noexcept to maps and sets, but forgot to account for the comparison function, which could throw when constructed. IMO you are fighting a losing battle. We should implement

Re: [PATCH] 77864 Fix noexcept conditions for map/set default constructors

2016-10-05 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016, Jonathan Wakely wrote: I added conditional noexcept to maps and sets, but forgot to account for the comparison function, which could throw when constructed. IMO you are fighting a losing battle. We should implement noexcept(auto) (possibly with some private