aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/hicpp-exception-baseclass.cpp:9 +class deep_hierarchy : public derived_exception {}; class non_derived_exception {}; ---------------- JonasToth wrote: > aaron.ballman wrote: > > JonasToth wrote: > > > aaron.ballman wrote: > > > > Can you add a test that uses multiple inheritance? e.g., > > > > ``` > > > > class terrible_idea : public non_derived_exception, public > > > > derived_exception {}; > > > > ``` > > > > Also, is private inheritance also acceptable, or does it need to be > > > > public inheritance? I kind of get the impression it needs to be public, > > > > because the goal appears to be that you should always be able to catch > > > > a `std::exception` instance, and you can't do that if it's privately > > > > inherited. That should have a test as well. > > > The rules do not state directly, that it must be inherited public, but i > > > dont see a good reason to allow non-public inheritance. > > > Another thing is, that you can always call `e.what()` on public derived > > > exceptions. > > > > > > Multiple inheritance is harder, since the type is still a > > > `std::exception`. One could catch it and use its interface, so these > > > reasons are gone to disallow it. > > > The rules do not state directly, that it must be inherited public, but i > > > dont see a good reason to allow non-public inheritance. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Another thing is, that you can always call e.what() on public derived > > > exceptions. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Multiple inheritance is harder, since the type is still a std::exception. > > > One could catch it and use its interface, so these reasons are gone to > > > disallow it. > > > > I think the multiple inheritance case should not diagnose because it meets > > the HIC++ requirement of being derived from `std::exception`. > I have a problem with implementing the inheritance rules. > > From the Matchers, there seems to be no way to test, if the inheritance is > public. Should i work a new matcher for that, or rather move the tests, if > the type holds all conditions into the callback function. This would mean, > that every `throw` gets matched. I would say you can handle private inheritance in a follow-up patch. I would look into changing the `isPublic()` (and related) matchers to handle inheritance (might as well handle `isVirtual()` at the same time, too), though I've not given this interface a ton of thought. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37060 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits