rjmccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:13121-13122
+ if (VD->isNoDestroy(getASTContext()) &&
+ !(VD->getType()->isArrayType() && getLangOpts().Exceptions &&
+ VD->isStaticLocal()))
return;
----------------
rsmith wrote:
> Hmm, perhaps it would be cleaner if the destructor for array elements were
> required by the initialization of the array, instead of here. That's how this
> works for struct aggregate initialization (see
> `InitListChecker::CheckStructUnionTypes`), and (indirectly) how it works for
> initialization by constructor, and so on. And it reflects the fact that it's
> the initialization process that needs the array element destructor, not the
> destruction of the variable (which never happens).
>
> For the case of aggregate initialization of an array, we appear to fail to
> implement [dcl.init.aggr]/8:
>
> """
> The destructor for each element of class type is potentially invoked (11.3.6)
> from the context where the aggregate initialization occurs. [Note: This
> provision ensures that destructors can be called for fully-constructed
> subobjects in case an exception is thrown (14.2). — end note]
> """
>
> (But there doesn't appear to be any corresponding wording for default / value
> initialization of arrays. See also the special case at the end of
> `BuildCXXNewExpr`.)
That makes sense to me. The default/value initialization case seems like an
obvious oversight in the standard, but I think it might be a distinction
without a difference: the special cases for base-or-member initializers and
new-expressions might cover literally every situation where initialization
doesn't come with an adjacent need for non-exceptional destruction.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D61165
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
