aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/warn-throw-out-noexcept-func.cpp:27
+}
+
+struct N : A {
----------------
jyu2 wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Can you add a test case like:
> > ```
> > struct Throws {
> > ~Throws() noexcept(false);
> > };
> >
> > struct ShouldDiagnose {
> > Throws T;
> > ~ShouldDiagnose() {}
> > };
> > ```
> > I would expect `~ShouldDiagnose()` to be diagnosed as allowing exceptions
> > to escape because of the destructor for `Throws`.
> In C++11, destructors are implicitly throw() unless any member or base of the
> type has a destructor with a different exception specification.
>
> In the case of:
> struct Throws {
> ~Throws() noexcept(false);
> };
>
> struct ShouldDiagnose {
> Throws T;
> ~ShouldDiagnose() {}
> };
>
> You should not see diagnose for ~ShouldDiagnose() , since ShouldDiagnose
> has a member ofr Throws which has destructor with noexcept(false); therefor
> ~ShouldDiagnose has noexcept(false).
>
> But I add test case which remove (false) part.
Good point! A test case with `noexcept(false)` would be handy as would one
where `~ShouldDiagnose()` is marked `noexcept(true)` explicitly rather than
picking up the `noexcept(false)` implicitly.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
