aaron.ballman added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20693#639030, @hintonda wrote:
> Matthias, I think you make a good point. While noexcept(expr) is valuable,
> noexcept(false) adds no value. Therefore, I think we should do as you
> suggest, i.e.:
>
> s/throw()/noexcept/
> s/throw(something)//
>
>
> Aaron, does this work for you?
I think it makes a reasonable option, but I think it should be off by default.
Again, I think that's hostile towards users to remove an explicit exception
specification entirely when there was an explicit dynamic exception
specification written on the function signature. `noexcept(false)` is a
stronger signal to anyone reading the signature than no exception specification
whatsoever.
Be careful, though, not to break code by removing the exception specification.
These two are *not* equivalent, for instance:
struct S {
~S() noexcept(false);
void operator delete(void *ptr) noexcept(false);
};
struct T {
~T(); // Is actually noexcept(true) by default!
void operator delete(void *ptr); // Is actually noexcept(true) by default!
};
https://reviews.llvm.org/D20693
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
