================
@@ -1205,11 +1205,12 @@ CanThrowResult Sema::canThrow(const Stmt *S) {
if (DTy.isNull() || DTy->isDependentType()) {
CT = CT_Dependent;
} else {
- CT = canCalleeThrow(*this, DE, DE->getOperatorDelete());
+ const FunctionDecl *OperatorDelete = DE->getOperatorDelete();
+ CT = canCalleeThrow(*this, DE, OperatorDelete);
if (const RecordType *RT = DTy->getAs<RecordType>()) {
const CXXRecordDecl *RD = cast<CXXRecordDecl>(RT->getDecl());
const CXXDestructorDecl *DD = RD->getDestructor();
- if (DD)
+ if (DD && !OperatorDelete->isDestroyingOperatorDelete())
----------------
zygoloid wrote:
Micro-optimization: looks like we could move the destroying delete check
further out. There's no need to go looking for a destructor if we have a
destroying delete. (`getDestructor` does a name lookup; it's not entirely
trivial work.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118687
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
