Correct overly-strengthened noexcept-specifier for basic_string_view constructor - #1510
Merged
Stephan T. Lavavej (StephanTLavavej) merged 1 commit intoDec 2, 2020
Conversation
Curtis J Bezault (cbezault)
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2020
Stephan T. Lavavej (StephanTLavavej)
approved these changes
Dec 2, 2020
Member
|
Thanks for making the STL stronger by ever-so-slightly weakening this exception specification! 😹 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
IIRC this noexcept-specifier was originally (incorrectly)
noexcept(to_address(_First))in the Standard, which was "corrected" both here and in an LWG issue tonoexcept(true)sinceto_addressnever throws. WG21 noticed that we'd been ignoring all along that the difference operation in the size calculation could throw and fixed the Standard by removing the noexcept-specifier completely, but for whatever reason I dropped the ball on fixing our strengthening appropriately until last week when I noticed this while experimentally implementing WG21-P1989.