lebedev.ri added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/bugprone-exception-escape.cpp:178
+void indirect_implicit() noexcept {
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:6: warning: function 'indirect_implicit'
throws
+ implicit_int_thrower();
----------------
baloghadamsoftware wrote:
> dberris wrote:
> > How deep does this go? Say we have a call to a function that's extern which
> > doesn't have 'noexcept' nor a dynamic exception specifier -- do we assume
> > that the call to an extern function may throw? Does that warn? What does
> > the warning look like? Should it warn? How about when you call a function
> > through a function pointer?
> >
> > The documentation should cover these cases and/or more explicitly say in
> > the warning that an exception may throw in a noexcept function (rather than
> > just "function <...> throws").
> We take the most conservative way here. We assume that a function throws if
> and only if its body has a throw statement or its header has the (old)
> throw() exception specification. We do not follow function pointers.
While i realize it may have more noise, it may be nice to have a more pedantic
mode (guarded by an option?).
E.g. `noexcept` propagation, much like `const` on methods propagation.
Or at least a test that shows that it does not happen, unless i simply did not
notice it :)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33537
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
