[libcxx-dev] std::vector using copy constructor on existing elements during reserve()

[Louis Dionne via libcxx-dev]

> On May 8, 2019, at 13:38, Eric Fiselier via libcxx-dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Is anyone going to take point on moving the Clang changes forward?
> 
> If not, I plan to propose a target fix for vector in the meantime.

Reading Richard’s email above, it didn’t seem obvious to me at all that we wanted to do this at all. Did I get that wrong?

Louis

> 
> On Mon., Apr. 29, 2019, 7:54 p.m. Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via libcxx-dev, <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 29, 2019, at 01:54, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk <mailto:richard at metafoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>> 
>> Longer-term, "Clang should drive the standard, not diverge from it"
>> (http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html <http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html>). We should be thinking about
>> the long term direction of exceptions in C++, and in particular Herb's
>> P0709. In that vein (particularly considering P0709R2's footnote 10
>> and nearby text) I'm wondering if we should have an experimental
>> option to specify that functions are noexcept by default (overridable
>> by an explicit exception specification) as a bridge for
>> -fno-exceptions users to take back towards standard C++.
> 
> This direction makes sense to me.
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev <https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev>
> _______________________________________________
> libcxx-dev mailing list
> libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libcxx-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/libcxx-dev/attachments/20190509/d0baac08/attachment.html>