isuckatcs added a comment.
I think the original behaviour was fine. The warning was emitted at every
occurence of the function. It might be confusing if it's only emitted for the
definition.
Also what happens in the following scenario:
int indirectly_recursive(int n) noexcept;
int recursion_helper(int n) noexcept {
indirectly_recursive(n);
}
We know that `indirectly_recursive(int n)` throws when it shouldn't and that
means `recursion_helper(int n)` will also throw when it shouldn't either.
Is it reported properly with this change?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148462/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148462
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
