Re: [lmi] gcc [[noreturn]] oddities

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:17:46 +0100 I wrote:

Me> On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:32:14 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
Me> 
Me> GC> Looking into this, I observe two oddities, one of which [(1) below]
Me> GC> may be a real concern, while the other [(2) below] seems more comical.
Me> GC> Given that gcc rejects code copied and pasted from the C++11 standard
Me> GC> [N3337], is there a way to use "[[noreturn]]" that is acceptable both
Me> GC> to gcc and also to conforming compilers?
Me> GC> 
Me> GC> (1) Where is "[[noreturn]]" to be written for a function template?
Me> GC> 
Me> GC> C++11 [18.8/1] specifies:
Me> GC> 
Me> GC> [[noreturn]] template <class T> void throw_with_nested(T&& t);
Me> 
Me>  I think this could have been a mistake
...
Me> I did ask at http://stackoverflow.com/q/42724750/15275

 I should have waited for literally 30 seconds more before sending this
message as this question was answered immediately after I sent it and it
does confirm that this was indeed a mistake, see

        http://stackoverflow.com/a/42724960/15275

 So the Sun still rises in the East and sets in the West and g++ and clang
are still correct here while MSVC is too permissive.

VZ