I understand you are referring to P2831; if that's the case, maybe we could
involve contracts here? Seems like they are the best solution to our
problem?

Tymi.

On Sun, 29 Jun 2025, 13:49 Tymi, <tymi.cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> It sure has preconditions, but so does start_lifetime_as,
> start_lifetime_as_array, to_pointer etc etc, and they ARE specified as
> noexcept
>
> Can't verify it because every single implementation marks it as noexcept
> anyway.
>
> Tymi.
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025, 13:47 Jonathan Wakely, <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2025, 11:06 Tymi via Std-Proposals, <
>> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> [ptr.align] specifies that `std::assume_aligned` throws *nothing*, so
>>> why isn't it already marked as `noexcept`?
>>>
>>
>> Because it has a precondition.
>>
>> Current signature:
>>> `template [[nodiscard]] constexpr T* assume_aligned(T* ptr);`
>>> Proposed signature:
>>> `template [[nodiscard]] constexpr T* assume_aligned(T* ptr) noexcept;`
>>>
>>> Impact on the standard: none
>>> Implementation: add noexcept specifier
>>>
>>> Reason: Better codegen on some compilers with exceptions (because of
>>> noexcept),
>>>
>>
>> Have you verified this?
>>
>>
>> after all this function is meant to be an optimisation point. Another
>>> smaller reason to use this function is noexcept functions, because some
>>> static analysers are not happy with using not noexcept functions in
>>> noexcept context...
>>>
>>>
>>>