On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 11:40 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > I don't think adding noexcept(false) to such dtors would be > good. They are surely not meant to throw.
Well, take 1399220 as a common enough pattern, an OUString += "something" and OUString::operator+= calls rtl_uString_newConcatAsciiL and that has a throw std::length_error. If it makes sense to claim this dtor won't throw cause that's just not going to happen in the real world, then it might make as much sense to remove the throw from += instead. Anyhow, if any member of a class or base-class has a dtor thats nothrow(false) that'll poison the whole hierarchy so they are implicitly nothrow(false) too, right ? So, in your dynamic exception specification changes mail you mentioned "For dtors, the dynamic exception specification would be replaced with an explicit nothrow(false)." so it might end up that lots of these warning melt away again if that affects something sufficiently lowlevel ? Maybe worry about these again after those changes land. C. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
