isuckatcs added a comment.
Apart from some nits I think this patch looks good.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bugprone/ExceptionEscapeCheck.cpp:26
+
+AST_MATCHER(FunctionDecl, isExplicitThrow) {
+ switch (Node.getExceptionSpecType()) {
----------------
How about creating an `isExplicitThrow()` helper function inside
`ExceptionSpecificationType.h`, where these enums are defined? That way if one
more enum is added, it will be more convenient to update the explicit throw
checks, not to mention it can also be reused in other checkers if needed.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/exception-escape.rst:14
* ``swap()`` functions
-* Functions marked with ``throw()`` or ``noexcept``
+* Functions marked with ``throw()``, ``noexcept``, ``noexcept(true)``
* Other functions given as option
----------------
Why remove `noexcept(true)`?
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/exception-escape.rst:25-29
+Functions declared explicitly with ``noexcept(false)`` or ``throw(exception)``
+will be excluded from the analysis, as even though it is not recommended for
+functions like ``swap``, ``main``, move constructors and assignment operators,
+and destructors, it is a clear indication of the developer's intention and
+should be respected..
----------------
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153423/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D153423
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
