sberg added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D40720#958743, @vsk wrote:
> > 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. ...and would be in line with what has been discussed in the mail sub-thread starting at http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20171218/213093.html "Re: r320982 - Revert r320978 'No -fsanitize=function warning when calling noexcept function through non-noexcept pointer in C++17'" 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
