vsk added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40720#958697, @sberg wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40720#958677, @vsk wrote: > > > Please add a test. > > > Note that the bot upon the first closing of this review changed the shown > diff from the combined cfe+compiler-rt diff to just the cfe part. See > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320977 for the compiler-rt part, including tests > in compiler-rt/trunk/test/ubsan/TestCases/TypeCheck/Function/function.cpp. Ah sorry, I'd missed that. Still, it's always nice to have a test at the IR-gen level as well as the runtime test, since those can be a bit more stringent. > Would it be possible to fix this by stripping the noexcept specifiers from > both the function type used in the check and the one that is embedded in the > prefix data? The downside is that we won't catch the case where the caller > has a noexcept specifier and the callee doesn't, but that seems like an edge > case to me, and we can think about fixing it in other ways later. This sounds fine to me, and it avoids breaking the trapping mode. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D40720 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
