aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/docs/clang-tidy/checks/bugprone-unhandled-exception-at-new.rst:17
+Calls to ``new`` can throw exception of type ``bad_alloc`` that should be
+handled by the code. Alternatively the nonthrowing form of ``new`` can be
+used. The check verifies that the exception is handled in the function
----------------
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-unhandled-exception-at-new.cpp:20
+
+void f1() noexcept {
+ int *I1 = new int;
----------------
It would be useful to also have a test with a function-try-block to ensure
those are handled properly.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/bugprone-unhandled-exception-at-new.cpp:143
+ f_est_noexcept_dependent_used<true>();
+}
----------------
You have tests for placement new with `nothrow_t`, but I think other forms of
placement new are also very interesting to test as those typically don't throw.
Additionally, perhaps tests where the allocation functions have been replaced
by the user (such as a class allocation function)?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97196/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D97196
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
