jyu2 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/warn-throw-out-noexcept-func.cpp:27
+}
+
+struct N : A {
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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.
Okay I add two tests ShouldDiagnoes and ShouldNotDiagnoes.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D33333
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
