From 10a65e2ee15499afa1df9717fe0031529b5e556e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marshall Clow Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:08:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] 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 --- libcxx/include/tuple | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/libcxx/include/tuple b/libcxx/include/tuple index 8ccec56c948c..1463170fe1c7 100644 --- a/libcxx/include/tuple +++ b/libcxx/include/tuple @@ -554,12 +554,12 @@ public: _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY _LIBCPP_CONSTEXPR_AFTER_CXX11 tuple(_Up&&... __u) _NOEXCEPT_(( - is_nothrow_constructible::type, typename __make_tuple_types::type, typename __make_tuple_indices::type, typename __make_tuple_types::type, - _Up...) + _Up... >::value )) : base_(typename __make_tuple_indices::type(), @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ public: explicit tuple(_Up&&... __u) _NOEXCEPT_(( - is_nothrow_constructible< + is_nothrow_constructible::type, typename __make_tuple_types::type, typename __make_tuple_indices::type,