[Bug 1201246] Re: lp:mir FTBFS: error: looser throw specifier for ‘testing::NiceMock<M>::~NiceMock()
Bug Watch Updater
1201246 at bugs.launchpad.net
Mon Jul 15 03:57:25 UTC 2013
Launchpad has imported 15 comments from the remote bug at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment
will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about
Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at
https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2011-08-11T09:23:21+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
... let's try this new Bugzilla ;)
This is an internal reminder that it would be nice to have implemented
quite soon the resolution of core/1123:
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1123
For sure the library would immediately benefit, no more explicitly
noexcept destructors in a lot of places.
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-02-21T11:51:14+00:00 Mimomorin wrote:
Created attachment 26711
A testcase for N3204
Attached a testcase for N3204 ;)
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-02-21T12:05:40+00:00 Redi wrote:
We don't want front-end testcases that rely on <iostream> and need to
check what gets printed. A better test would use static_assert, but
would also test cases with both throwing and non-throwing base class and
members.
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-02-22T02:43:30+00:00 Mimomorin wrote:
Created attachment 26721
A updated testcase
OK, here is a take two!
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-23T01:05:26+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
Jason, I'm glad to work on this (if you don't have anything better to do
;) Any tips for me? Shouldn't be so hard but I'm still a bit lost...
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-23T01:07:00+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
Of course I meant "if you have something better to do ;)"
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-23T17:59:05+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
I'm making some progress understanding these parts of the front-end.
For example the following trivial patchlet passes the testcase ;) But,
seriously, I'm not sure whether we really need a full fledged
build_exception_variant, whether we have to do something about LAZY_*
things, and much, much, more.
Index: class.c
===================================================================
--- class.c (revision 185722)
+++ class.c (working copy)
@@ -1001,6 +1001,10 @@ add_method (tree type, tree method, tree using_dec
"destructor",
type);
}
+ else if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x
+ && !TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (TREE_TYPE (method)))
+ TREE_TYPE (method) = build_exception_variant (TREE_TYPE (method),
+ noexcept_true_spec);
}
else
{
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-23T18:17:56+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
This doesn't compile, for example:
struct B
{
~B();
};
B::~B() { }
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-03-23T22:48:59+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
The latter issue could be addressed by something like:
Index: decl.c
===================================================================
--- decl.c (revision 185715)
+++ decl.c (working copy)
@@ -1136,7 +1136,10 @@ check_redeclaration_exception_specification (tree
if ((pedantic || ! DECL_IN_SYSTEM_HEADER (old_decl))
&& ! DECL_IS_BUILTIN (old_decl)
&& flag_exceptions
- && !comp_except_specs (new_exceptions, old_exceptions, ce_normal))
+ && !comp_except_specs (new_exceptions, old_exceptions, ce_normal)
+ && !(DECL_DESTRUCTOR_P (new_decl)
+ && cxx_dialect >= cxx0x
+ && !new_exceptions && TYPE_NOEXCEPT_P (old_type)))
{
error ("declaration of %qF has a different exception specifier",
new_decl);
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-02T00:13:35+00:00 Paolo-k wrote:
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012
New Revision: 186058
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058
Log:
/cp
2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
PR c++/50043
* class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor,
deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New.
(check_bases_and_members): Call the latter.
* decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former.
* method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static.
* cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn):
Declare
/testsuite
2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
PR c++/50043
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New.
* g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust.
* g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise.
* g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c
trunk/gcc/cp/method.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-02T00:19:43+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
Done. Library clean-ups will follow.
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-04-12T00:10:26+00:00 Paolo-carlini wrote:
*** Bug 51295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-06-11T10:28:40+00:00 Redi wrote:
*** Bug 53613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-06-13T03:48:34+00:00 Kirbyzhou wrote:
How about back port this patch to 4.7 branch?
It cause a lot of compile error which easily confuse programmers.
(In reply to comment #9)
> Author: paolo
> Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012
> New Revision: 186058
>
> URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058
> Log:
> /cp
> 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
>
> PR c++/50043
> * class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor,
> deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New.
> (check_bases_and_members): Call the latter.
> * decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former.
> * method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static.
> * cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn):
> Declare
>
> /testsuite
> 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
>
> PR c++/50043
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New.
> * g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust.
> * g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise.
> * g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise.
>
> Added:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
> trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c
> trunk/gcc/cp/method.c
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2012-06-15T02:14:48+00:00 Kirbyzhou wrote:
I have tested to apply this patch to 4.7 branch, everythings goes well.
Since it breaks already existing code, anybody can do commit backport to 4.7 branch?
(In reply to comment #13)
> How about back port this patch to 4.7 branch?
> It cause a lot of compile error which easily confuse programmers.
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Author: paolo
> > Date: Mon Apr 2 00:13:30 2012
> > New Revision: 186058
> >
> > URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=186058
> > Log:
> > /cp
> > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
> >
> > PR c++/50043
> > * class.c (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor,
> > deduce_noexcept_on_destructors): New.
> > (check_bases_and_members): Call the latter.
> > * decl.c (grokfndecl): Call the former.
> > * method.c (implicitly_declare_fn): Not static.
> > * cp-tree.h (deduce_noexcept_on_destructor, implicitly_declare_fn):
> > Declare
> >
> > /testsuite
> > 2012-04-01 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle.com>
> >
> > PR c++/50043
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C: New.
> > * g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C: Adjust.
> > * g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C: Likewise.
> > * g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C: Likewise.
> > * g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C: Likewise.
> > * g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C: Likwise.
> >
> > Added:
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept17.C
> > Modified:
> > trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> > trunk/gcc/cp/class.c
> > trunk/gcc/cp/cp-tree.h
> > trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c
> > trunk/gcc/cp/method.c
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept01.C
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/ctor1.C
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/eh/init-temp1.C
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/ehcleanup-1.C
> > trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.eh/cleanup1.C
Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bug/1201246/comments/14
** Changed in: gcc
Status: Unknown => Fix Released
** Changed in: gcc
Importance: Unknown => Medium
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to gcc-defaults in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1201246
Title:
lp:mir FTBFS: error: looser throw specifier for
‘testing::NiceMock<M>::~NiceMock()
Status in The GNU Compiler Collection:
Fix Released
Status in Mir:
New
Status in “gcc-defaults” package in Ubuntu:
Fix Released
Bug description:
I know this is a gcc-4.7 (raring) bug. But I'm logging it in case we
can find a workaround.
[ 48%] Building CXX object tests/mir_test_doubles/CMakeFiles/mir-test-doubles.dir/test_protobuf_client.cpp.o
In file included from /usr/include/gmock/gmock.h:62:0,
from /home/dan/bzr/mir/ftb/include/test/mir_test/test_protobuf_client.h:25,
from /home/dan/bzr/mir/ftb/tests/mir_test_doubles/test_protobuf_client.cpp:19:
/usr/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h: In instantiation of ‘class testing::NiceMock<mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport>’:
/usr/include/c++/4.7/type_traits:1252:2: required by substitution of ‘template<class _From1, class _To1> static decltype ((__test_aux<_To1>(declval<_From1>()), std::__sfinae_types::__one())) std::__is_convertible_helper<_From, _To, false>::__test(int) [with _From1 = _From1; _To1 = _To1; _From = testing::NiceMock<mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport>*; _To = mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport*] [with _From1 = testing::NiceMock<mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport>*; _To1 = mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport*]’
/usr/include/c++/4.7/type_traits:1258:70: required from ‘constexpr const bool std::__is_convertible_helper<testing::NiceMock<mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport>*, mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport*, false>::value’
/usr/include/c++/4.7/type_traits:1263:12: required from ‘struct std::is_convertible<testing::NiceMock<mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport>*, mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport*>’
/usr/include/c++/4.7/bits/shared_ptr.h:216:31: required from here
/usr/include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h:166:11: error: looser throw specifier for ‘testing::NiceMock<M>::~NiceMock() [with MockClass = mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport]’
In file included from /home/dan/bzr/mir/ftb/tests/mir_test_doubles/test_protobuf_client.cpp:20:0:
/home/dan/bzr/mir/ftb/include/test/mir_test_doubles/mock_rpc_report.h:38:5: error: overriding ‘virtual mir::test::doubles::MockRpcReport::~MockRpcReport() noexcept (true)’
make[2]: *** [tests/mir_test_doubles/CMakeFiles/mir-test-doubles.dir/test_protobuf_client.cpp.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [tests/mir_test_doubles/CMakeFiles/mir-test-doubles.dir/all] Error 2
make: *** [all] Error 2
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/1201246/+subscriptions
More information about the foundations-bugs
mailing list