Mir

lp:mir FTBFS: error: looser throw specifier for ‘testing::NiceMock<M>::~NiceMock()

Bug #1201246 reported by Daniel van Vugt on 2013-07-15

This bug affects 1 person

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to
	Mir	Won't Fix	Low	Unassigned
	gcc	Fix Released	Medium	gcc-bugzilla #50043
	gcc-4.7 (Ubuntu)	Fix Released	Undecided	Unassigned
Nominated for Raring by Daniel van Vugt
	gcc-4.8 (Ubuntu)	Fix Released	Undecided	Unassigned
Nominated for Raring by Daniel van Vugt

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

Tags:

Related branches

lp:debian/gcc-4.7

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2011-08-11:

... 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.

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Mimomorin (mimomorin) wrote on 2012-02-21:

Created attachment 26711
A testcase for N3204

Attached a testcase for N3204 ;)

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Redi (redi) wrote on 2012-02-21:

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.

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Mimomorin (mimomorin) wrote on 2012-02-22:

Created attachment 26721
A updated testcase

OK, here is a take two!

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-03-23:

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...

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-03-23:

#10

Of course I meant "if you have something better to do ;)"

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-03-23:

#11

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
     {

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-03-23:

#12

This doesn't compile, for example:

struct B
{
~B();
};

B::~B() { }

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-03-23:

#13

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);

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-k (paolo-k) wrote on 2012-04-02:

#14

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 <email address hidden>

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 <email address hidden>

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

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-04-02:

#15

Done. Library clean-ups will follow.

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Paolo-carlini (paolo-carlini) wrote on 2012-04-12:

#16

*** Bug 51295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Redi (redi) wrote on 2012-06-11:

#17

*** Bug 53613 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Kirbyzhou (kirbyzhou) wrote on 2012-06-13:

#18

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 <email address hidden>
>
> 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 <email address hidden>
>
> 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

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Kirbyzhou (kirbyzhou) wrote on 2012-06-15:

#19

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 <email address hidden>
> >
> > 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 <email address hidden>
> >
> > 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

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) on 2013-07-15

Changed in gcc-defaults (Ubuntu):
status:	New → Fix Released

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2013-07-15:

Workaround:

Edit: include/gmock/gmock-generated-nice-strict.h and change:
virtual ~NiceMock() {
to:
virtual ~NiceMock() noexcept {

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2013-07-15:

And that's why it's a bad idea to live on the edge of language specs. Compilers will always be several years behind and/or incomplete/buggy in their implementation. :(

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2013-07-15:

Sorry, ignore that workaround. It only works if you do it halfway through the build. It will only cause new problems if you rebuild.

Revision history for this message

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) wrote on 2013-07-15:

Real workaround for raring; install gcc-4.8:
  sudo apt-add-repository https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-toolchain-r/+archive/test
  sudo apt-get update
  sudo apt-get install g++-4.8
  cmake .. -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=gcc-4.8 -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=g++-4.8

Bug Watch Updater (bug-watch-updater) on 2013-07-15

Changed in gcc:
importance:	Unknown → Medium
status:	Unknown → Fix Released

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) on 2013-07-15

tags:

added: portability

Matthias Klose (doko) on 2013-07-15

affects:

gcc-defaults (Ubuntu) → gcc-4.8 (Ubuntu)

kevin gunn (kgunn72) on 2013-07-15

Changed in mir:
importance:	Undecided → Low
status:	New → Triaged

Revision history for this message

Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote on 2013-07-15:

#20

This bug was fixed in the package gcc-4.7 - 4.7.3-6ubuntu1

---------------
gcc-4.7 (4.7.3-6ubuntu1) saucy; urgency=low

* Merge with Debian; remaining changes:
- Build from upstream source.

gcc-4.7 (4.7.3-6) unstable; urgency=low

* Update to SVN 20130715 (r200955) from the gcc-4_7-branch.

  [ Matthias Klose ]
  * Fall back to the binutils version of the binutils build dependency
    if the binutils version used for the build cannot be determined.
  * For ARM multilib builds, use libsf/libhf system directories to lookup
    files for the non-default multilib (for now, only for the cross compilers).
  * Fix documentation builds with texinfo-5.1.
  * Update the Linaro support to the 4.7-2013.07 release.
  * Backport PR c++/50043 from the 4.8 branch. LP: #1201246.

  [ Aurelien Jarno ]
  * Don't pass --with-mips-plt on mips/mipsel.
  * Add 32-bit biarch packages on sparc64.
-- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:11:30 +0200

Changed in gcc-4.7 (Ubuntu):
status:	New → Fix Released

Daniel van Vugt (vanvugt) on 2013-10-03

Changed in mir:
status:	Triaged → Won't Fix

Revision history for this message

In GCC Bugzilla #50043, Redi (redi) wrote on 2014-05-05:

#21

*** Bug 61067 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Report a bug

This report contains Public information

Everyone can see this information.

You are

Subscribing...

Edit bug mail

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

gcc-bugzilla #50043
[RESOLVED FIXED] Edit

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.