baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/clang-tidy/bugprone-exception-escape.cpp:178 +void indirect_implicit() noexcept { + // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:6: warning: function 'indirect_implicit' throws + implicit_int_thrower(); ---------------- lebedev.ri wrote: > baloghadamsoftware wrote: > > dberris wrote: > > > How deep does this go? Say we have a call to a function that's extern > > > which doesn't have 'noexcept' nor a dynamic exception specifier -- do we > > > assume that the call to an extern function may throw? Does that warn? > > > What does the warning look like? Should it warn? How about when you call > > > a function through a function pointer? > > > > > > The documentation should cover these cases and/or more explicitly say in > > > the warning that an exception may throw in a noexcept function (rather > > > than just "function <...> throws"). > > We take the most conservative way here. We assume that a function throws if > > and only if its body has a throw statement or its header has the (old) > > throw() exception specification. We do not follow function pointers. > While i realize it may have more noise, it may be nice to have a more > pedantic mode (guarded by an option?). > E.g. `noexcept` propagation, much like `const` on methods propagation. > Or at least a test that shows that it does not happen, unless i simply did > not notice it :) This could be an enhancement in the future, yes. https://reviews.llvm.org/D33537 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits