Hi Richard,
Thanks your comments.
However, I have no idea whether I should do this patch.
I've tested by gcc, clang and searched C++ spec draft n3242, the result is
that both GCC and Clang failed on that and I cannot find any wording on
this issue.
Could you teach me more or could some else help?
Thanks!
1 struct S {
2 void foo() throw (S[10]) { throw 0; } // Both gcc and clang failed
on this function
3 void bar() throw (S) { throw 0; }
4 };
5
6 int main() {
7 S().foo();
8 S().bar();
9 }
2012/11/21 Richard Smith <[email protected]>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:54 AM, WenHan Gu (谷汶翰) <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've done the patch and testcase to fix PR14338.
> > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14388
> >
> > Here's the patch, please review:
> > http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=9574&action=diff
> >
> >
> > Is that okay to commit?
>
> A matching update is needed in SemaTemplateInstantiateDecl. Perhaps
> you could put this logic into CheckSepcifiedExceptionType (and either
> return the modified type or pass it through by reference)? One of the
> checks in CheckSpecifiedExceptionType also needs updating. With your
> patch, we still reject this:
>
> struct S {
> void f() throw (S[10]);
> };
>
> ... but we should accept it, because the type 'S' is supposed to be
> considered as complete in exception specifications inside its body.
>
--
Best regards,
Wen-Han Gu (Nowar)
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
