jyu2 added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333#761233, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333#761224, @rnk wrote: > > > Re: clang-tidy, I would rather implement this as a traditional compiler > > warning. > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333#761208, @aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333#761126, @jyu2 wrote: > > > > > > > As I said, I don't think checking throw type matching catch handler > > > > type is compiler's job. I'd like either silence all warning for that. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > > Consider the following cases: > > > ... > > > I think the expected behavior in these cases is reasonable (and can be > > > done with a CFG) rather than manually looking at the scope stack like > > > you're doing. > > > > > > I agree with @jyu2, we should do something simple. I think it would be > > simple to handle all cases except for `h`, which requires semantic analysis > > to figure out if the thrown object would be caught by the catch parameter. > > Implementing that is more likely to introduce bugs in the compiler than it > > is to find bugs in user code. > > > I'm not certain I agree with the assertion it's more likely to introduce bugs > in the compiler than find bugs in user code. Machine-generated code runs into > silly things like this, and it's nice to warn the user about it. However, it > may be reasonable to do that in a follow-up patch -- but that patch is likely > to have a lot of churn since it's not really plausible to implement with the > way @jyu2 has structured this patch. By making this an analysis-based warning > instead, that would alleviate my concerns (but would likely require > implementing the CFG approach anyway). > > > I doubt we need the CFG for any of this. The later examples are all > > throwing exceptions from catch blocks, which is the same as not having an > > open try scope. > > Sure, if you cut out the cases that require a CFG, you don't need a CFG for > it. :-P Use of a CFG would eliminate obvious false-positives such as `h()`. > > Also, there should be some tests with function-try-blocks. Sure, I will add that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
