1 files changed, 0 insertions, 100 deletions
diff --git a/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch b/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 51ee459f..00000000
--- a/source/d/gcc/patches/PR100101.2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
-From 2efbbba16a0630fac8cadcd6d9e0ffaabfadb79f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:38:54 -0400
-Subject: [PATCH] c++: noexcept error recursion [PR100101]
-
-Here instantiating the noexcept-specifier for bar<void>() means
-instantiating A<void>::value, which complains about the conversion from 0 to
-int* in the default argument of foo.  Since my patch for PR99583, printing
-the error context involves looking at C<void>::type, which again wants to
-instantiate A<void>::value, which breaks.  For now at least, let's break
-this recursion by avoiding looking into the noexcept-specifier in
-find_typenames, and limit that to just the uses_parameter_packs case that
-PR99583 cares about.
-
-gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
-
-	PR c++/100101
-	PR c++/99583
-	* pt.c (find_parameter_packs_r) [FUNCTION_TYPE]: Walk into
-	TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS here.
-
-gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
-
-	PR c++/100101
-	* g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C: New test.
----
- gcc/cp/pt.c                             | 11 +++++++++++
- gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
- 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
- create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
-
-diff --git a/gcc/cp/pt.c b/gcc/cp/pt.c
-index 0f119a55272..2190f83882a 100644
---- a/gcc/cp/pt.c
-+++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c
-@@ -3890,6 +3890,10 @@ find_parameter_packs_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void* data)
-     (struct find_parameter_pack_data*)data;
-   bool parameter_pack_p = false;
- 
-+#define WALK_SUBTREE(NODE)				\
-+  cp_walk_tree (&(NODE), &find_parameter_packs_r,	\
-+		ppd, ppd->visited)			\
-+
-   /* Don't look through typedefs; we are interested in whether a
-      parameter pack is actually written in the expression/type we're
-      looking at, not the target type.  */
-@@ -4070,10 +4074,17 @@ find_parameter_packs_r (tree *tp, int *walk_subtrees, void* data)
- 			ppd, ppd->visited);
-       return NULL_TREE;
- 
-+    case FUNCTION_TYPE:
-+    case METHOD_TYPE:
-+      WALK_SUBTREE (TYPE_RAISES_EXCEPTIONS (t));
-+      break;
-+
-     default:
-       return NULL_TREE;
-     }
- 
-+#undef WALK_SUBTREE
-+
-   return NULL_TREE;
- }
- 
-diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
-new file mode 100644
-index 00000000000..7f061034323
---- /dev/null
-+++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/noexcept67.C
-@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
-+// PR c++/100101
-+// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
-+
-+template <typename T> struct A
-+{
-+    template <typename U> static char foo(U*, int* = 0);
-+    static const bool value = sizeof(foo(static_cast<T*>(nullptr))) > 0;
-+};
-+
-+template <bool b> struct B
-+{
-+    static const bool value = b;
-+};
-+
-+template <typename T> struct C
-+{
-+    typedef B<A<T>::value> type;
-+};
-+
-+template <typename T>
-+void bar() noexcept(A<T>::value && C<T>::type::value) {}
-+
-+void baz()
-+{
-+  bar<void>();
-+}
--- 
-2.27.0
-
-