xazax.hun added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ExceptionMisuseChecker.cpp:105
+ ReportExnSpec(ReportExnSpec) {
+ // In the beginning we have to parse list formatted options
+ SmallVector<StringRef, 10> EnabledFuncsVec;
----------------
All comments should be full sentences starting with a capital letter and ending
with a period.
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/ExceptionMisuseChecker.cpp:109
+ EnabledFuncs.insert(EnabledFuncsVec.begin(), EnabledFuncsVec.end());
+ EnabledFuncs.insert("swap");
+ EnabledFuncs.insert("main");
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> Why is `swap` hardcoded as an "enabledfunc"?
It is always possible to implement swap in a non-throwing way, and some
implementations that are using the copy and swap idiom, expecting swap to be
no-throw.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/exception-misuse.cpp:26
+
+ ~Y() { // expected-warning{{This function should not throw}}
+ // nesting
----------------
whisperity wrote:
> whisperity wrote:
> > Yet again, better wording: _Destructor not marked `noexcept(false)` should
> > not throw_ (this is true since `C++11`, maybe this needs to be based on a
> > conditional in the checker!)
> >
> > @xazax.hun, any idea on what a good error message here should be?
> Also, a test case for a throwing, and `noexcept(false)`-specified dtor is
> missing.
In fact, the function can throw, if the exception is catched before leaving
the function body. And in case the function does not throw but a called
function do, that is also an error. So maybe something like exception are not
allowed to leave this function?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D32350
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
