isuckatcs added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/utils/ExceptionAnalyzer.cpp:306
+
+ if (From->isMemberPointerType() || To->isMemberPointerType())
return false;
----------------
isuckatcs wrote:
> PiotrZSL wrote:
> > isuckatcs wrote:
> > > isuckatcs wrote:
> > > > Please cover this line with both positive and negative test cases.
> > > >
> > > > Also upon looking up both [[
> > > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/standards | N4849 ]] (C++
> > > > 20 draft) and [[ https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/releases | N4917]]
> > > > (C++ 23 draft), they both say for qualification conversion that
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > each P_i is ... pointer to member of class C_i of type, ...
> > > >
> > > > Why are we not allowing them if the standard is at least C++ 20?
> > > Please resolve this thread.
> > Positive case is tested by throw_basefn_catch_derivedfn test and
> > throw_derivedfn_catch_basefn.
> > Negative is covered by throw_basefn_catch_basefn.
> >
> > For members there are tests throw_basem_catch_basem,
> > throw_basem_catch_derivedm, throw_derivedm_catch_basem that also covers
> > this correctly.
> >
> > Tested this with GCC, and behavior is proper and independent to C++
> > standard.
> > Tested this with GCC, and behavior is proper and independent to C++
> > standard.
>
> I don't know how to deal with this tbh. In a static analyzer we usually want
> to consider what the standard says and not what a specific compiler
> implementation does, as the compiler can still be buggy, lack the proper
> support for the standard, etc.
>
> Maybe we can add a FIXME here that explains, why this check is here and that
> it's the opposite of what the standard says. Then later if it causes issues,
> it will be easy to see why that happens.
>
> @xazax.hun do you have a prefered method to deal with these situations in the
> analyzer? If there is one, we could also try it here.
@PiotrZSL this is still unanswered. The standard says these are allowed, so
according to the standard we model something wrong here, unless I'm
misunderstanding something.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148461/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148461
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
