Thanks to K-ballo for noting a second incorrect noexcept clause in tuple - and suggesting a more correct way to write the first

llvm-svn: 217884
This commit is contained in:
Marshall Clow 2014-09-16 17:08:21 +00:00
parent b23e20b7f5
commit 10a65e2ee1

View File

@ -554,12 +554,12 @@ public:
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_AFTER_CXX11
tuple(_Up&&... __u)
_NOEXCEPT_((
is_nothrow_constructible<base(
is_nothrow_constructible<base,
typename __make_tuple_indices<sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
typename __make_tuple_types<tuple, sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
typename __make_tuple_indices<sizeof...(_Tp), sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
typename __make_tuple_types<tuple, sizeof...(_Tp), sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
_Up...)
_Up...
>::value
))
: base_(typename __make_tuple_indices<sizeof...(_Up)>::type(),
@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ public:
explicit
tuple(_Up&&... __u)
_NOEXCEPT_((
is_nothrow_constructible<
is_nothrow_constructible<base,
typename __make_tuple_indices<sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
typename __make_tuple_types<tuple, sizeof...(_Up)>::type,
typename __make_tuple_indices<sizeof...(_Tp), sizeof...(_Up)>::type,