aaron.ballman marked 4 inline comments as done.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cert/ThrownExceptionTypeCheck.cpp:18
@@ +17,3 @@
+namespace {
+AST_MATCHER(CXXConstructorDecl, isNoThrowCopyConstructible) {
+ if (!Node.isCopyConstructor())
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> nit: I suggest changing `isNoThrowCopyConstructible` to
> `isNoThrowCopyConstructor`, because "constructible" is a trait of a class,
> not its constructor.
Good catch; that was a holdover from the previous version where it was
operating on the CXXRecordDecl instead.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cert/ThrownExceptionTypeCheck.cpp:22
@@ +21,3 @@
+
+ if (Node.isTrivial())
+ return true;
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> Out of curiosity: are we short-circuiting here for performance reasons or
> would the code below return `false` in this case?
I pulled the logic from the unary type trait evaluation logic, but stripped out
the bits that were already handled by the AST matcher logic itself. I don't
believe this is actually necessary for this checker, however.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/cert/ThrownExceptionTypeCheck.cpp:34
@@ +33,3 @@
+ }
+ return true;
+}
----------------
alexfh wrote:
> Is this `return` reachable? If yes, when exactly does this happen and is
> there a test for this case?
No, it is not reachable. There's no way, that I am aware of, to get a copy
constructor with no function prototype.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14619
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
