LegalizeAdulthood added a comment. Herald added a subscriber: PiotrZSL. In D128697#3638467 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128697#3638467>, @Sockke wrote:
> In D128697#3619310 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128697#3619310>, > @LegalizeAdulthood wrote: > >> This whole check seems weird to me. I mean, almost every use of a standard >> container could throw `std::bad_alloc` but we don't insist on a local >> `catch` for `bad_alloc` at every possible throwing call site. >> >> Why would we assume that every call site of `stoi` or `stod` **must** have >> an exception handler immediately around it? It's perfectly acceptable for >> an application to handle this at an outer scope that can't be detected by >> clang-tidy. > > Makes sense, I implemented this check here because some projects in ByteDance > used stoi with missing exception handlers caused an online crash, I think > this is a relatively common problem. Perhaps only report diagnostics for > stoi calls in nothrow functions? I don't have anything more to add; I mean, you answered my question with another question. I still don't see that this check is making things better. Have you run it on large code bases to see what kind of nuisance it creates? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D128697/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D128697 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
