search for: regher

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "regher".

Did you mean: regehr
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
2017 Jan 03
2
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
...ermination - something that's not entirely > clear w.r.t readonly. However, apparently, they don't imply nothrow. I've > actually always thought they *do* imply it - and said so on-list :-) - but > it looks like GCC itself doesn't interpret them that way. E.g. see John > Regher's example here: https://t.co/REzy5m1tT3 > So there's at least one use-case for possibly throwing readonly/readnone. One important thing to note then: clang marks const and pure functions as nounwind *explicitly*. That needs to be fixed. https://godbolt.org/g/SMF4C9 > As a side not...
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
2017 Jan 03
3
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
...; > clear w.r.t readonly. However, apparently, they don't imply nothrow. >> I've >> > actually always thought they *do* imply it - and said so on-list :-) - >> but >> > it looks like GCC itself doesn't interpret them that way. E.g. see John >> > Regher's example here: https://t.co/REzy5m1tT3 >> > So there's at least one use-case for possibly throwing >> readonly/readnone. >> >> One important thing to note then: clang marks const and pure functions >> as nounwind *explicitly*. That needs to be fixed. >&...
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
2017 Jan 05
2
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
...tly, they don't imply nothrow. >>>>> I've >>>>> actually always thought they *do* imply it - and said so on-list :-) - >>>>> but >>>>> it looks like GCC itself doesn't interpret them that way. E.g. see John >>>>> Regher's example here: https://t.co/REzy5m1tT3 >>>>> So there's at least one use-case for possibly throwing >>>>> readonly/readnone. >>>> One important thing to note then: clang marks const and pure functions >>>> as nounwind *explicitly*. Tha...
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
2017 Jan 03
4
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
LLVM today does not clearly specify if a function specified to not write to memory (i.e. readonly or readnone) is allowed to throw exceptions. LangRef is ambiguous on this issue. The normative statement is "[readnone/readonly functions] cannot unwind exceptions by calling the C++ exception throwing methods" which does not decide an answer for non C++ languages. It used to say (h/t
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
2017 Jan 05
3
RFC: Allow readnone and readonly functions to throw exceptions
...;ve >>>>>>> actually always thought they *do* imply it - and said so on-list :-) - >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> it looks like GCC itself doesn't interpret them that way. E.g. see >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> Regher's example here: https://t.co/REzy5m1tT3 >>>>>>> So there's at least one use-case for possibly throwing >>>>>>> readonly/readnone. >>>>>> One important thing to note then: clang marks const and pure functions >>>>>&gt...