Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:47:33 +0900 From: Michel
Michel Morin wrote:
Ah, I see what I was missing. As Daryle said, the destruction of a MemberType temporary is invoked in noexcept operator. I didn't notice this, because clang does not evaluate the destructor.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Clang **does** checking the destructor in noexcept operator.
I didn't know of N3204 (deducing noexcept for destructors), http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3204.htm and I made a wrong comment on clang's noexcept operator.
As per N3204 (clang already implemented this), with the following type
struct type { type() noexcept; ~type() { throw 0; } };
`noexcept(type())` should return true, despite the fact that the destructor throws.
Explicitly adding a "noexcept(false)" to the destructor (which may be a good idea) would change "noexcept(type())" to false, right? The global-void*-new method should never consider the destructor in noexcept evalutations. (I originally had "never considers" instead of "should never consider," but I don't know how delegating constructors interact with new. If a new call craps out during the constructor phase, the destructor shouldn't be called, since the object was never fully initiated. But that's not the case with delegating constructors; they're complete as soon as the first (non-delegating?) sibling call completes. Does anyone know the C++11 policy on these interactions?) Daryle W.