问题描述
代码:
struct T {T(){}};
struct S
{
T t;
S()noexcept = default;
};
int main()
{
// S s;
}
g ++ 4.9.2接受这个没有错误或警告, 3.7报告第7行:
错误:显式默认构造函数的异常规范与计算的不匹配
但是,如果 S s;
行未注释掉, g ++ 4.9.2现在报告:
noex.cc:在函数'int main()'中:
noex。 cc:12:7:错误:使用已删除的函数'S :: S()'
S s;
^
noex.cc:7:5:注意:'S :: S()noexcept'被隐式删除,因为它的异常规范不匹配隐式异常规范
S()noexcept = default;
^
哪个编译器适合原始代码?
背景:
g ++甚至允许添加到主
:
std :: cout< std :: is_constructible< S> :: value<< '\\\
';输出 0
的
我遇到这个问题,当使用clang编译一些复杂的代码,大量使用模板,SFINAE和noexcept。在该代码 S
和 T
是模板类;因此行为取决于 S
被实例化的类型。 Clang拒绝它与一些类型的这个错误,而g ++允许它和SFINAE基于 is_constructible
和类似的traits工作。
N3337 [dcl.fct.def.default] /
p2:
这是由(N4296 [dcl.fct.def.default] / p3):
这意味着构造函数现在只被定义为已删除。 (上述措词包含所做的更改, C ++ 14纸张做一些清理更改纯粹是编辑的N3936版本是基本一样的)
可能GCC实现CWG1778的分辨率,而Clang不' t。
The code:
struct T { T() {} };
struct S
{
T t;
S() noexcept = default;
};
int main()
{
// S s;
}
g++ 4.9.2 accepts this with no errors or warnings, however clang 3.6 and 3.7 report for line 7:
error: exception specification of explicitly defaulted default constructor does not match the calculated one
However, if the line S s;
is not commented out, g++ 4.9.2 now reports:
noex.cc: In function 'int main()':
noex.cc:12:7: error: use of deleted function 'S::S()'
S s;
^
noex.cc:7:5: note: 'S::S() noexcept' is implicitly deleted because its exception-specification does not match the implicit exception-specification ''
S() noexcept = default;
^
Which compiler is right for the original code?
Background:
g++ even allows the following to be added to main
:
std::cout << std::is_constructible<S>::value << '\n';
which outputs 0
. I encountered this problem when using clang to compile some complicated code that made heavy use of templates, SFINAE and noexcept. In that code S
and T
are template classes; so the behaviour depends on which types S
was instantiated with. Clang rejects it with this error for some types, whereas g++ permits it and the SFINAE works based on is_constructible
and similar traits.
Depends on the version of the standard you are consulting.
N3337 [dcl.fct.def.default]/p2:
which renders your original code ill-formed.
This was changed by CWG issue 1778 to read (N4296 [dcl.fct.def.default]/p3):
which means that the constructor is now merely defined as deleted. (The above wording incorporated changes made by N4285, a post-C++14 paper making some cleanup changes intended to be purely editorial. The N3936 version is substantively the same.)
Presumably GCC implements CWG1778's resolution, while Clang doesn't.
这篇关于程序与“noexcept”构造函数由gcc接受,被clang拒绝的文章就介绍到这了,希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助,也希望大家多多支持!