aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaType.cpp:6970 + if (Proto->hasExceptionSpec()) + return true; + ---------------- erichkeane wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > I think we should diagnose that the `nothrow` is ignored in this case to > > let users know they've done something in conflict and what wins. > I've been considering that over the weekend, and agree it is a good idea. I > am on the fence about the when however. For example, should we warn with > throw() or noexcept or noexcept(true)? In these cases, ignoring the attribute > is the same as enforcing it. > > My concern is that noexcept (expression-evaluating-to-true) gets ignored with > a diagnostic, but has the same effect. > > Did you have an opinion here? I think the metric should be: if there are conflicting attributes where we need to ignore one of them, we should always diagnose when the attributes specify conflicting semantics, but we don't have to always diagnose when the attributes specify the same semantics. In this case, e.g., ``` __declspec(nothrow) void foo1() noexcept; // Don't bother warning __declspec(nothrow) void foo2() noexcept(true); // Don't bother warning __declspec(nothrow) void foo3() noexcept(false); // Warn __declspec(nothrow) void foo4() noexcept(foo1()); // Warning is debatable __declspec(nothrow) void foo5() noexcept(foo3()); // Warn ``` CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62435/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62435 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
