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
