aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.cpp:21
@@ +20,3 @@
+
+static StringRef
+makeDynamicExceptionString(const SourceManager &SM,
----------------
hintonda wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Instead of a bunch of static functions, would an unnamed namespace make
> > more sense?
> Just following the pattern established in other checkers so as to minimize
> the number of changes, but will change to namespace.
I don't have strong opinions; I think the usual rule of thumb boils down to
whether the code fits on a page or not (if it does, use an unnamed namespace,
if not, use static functions).
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/modernize/UseNoexceptCheck.cpp:46
@@ +45,3 @@
+ const SmallVector<Token, 16> &Tokens) {
+ // Find throw token -- it's a keyword, so there can't be more than one.
Also,
+ // it should be near the end of the declaration, so search from the end.
----------------
hintonda wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Pathologically terrible counter-case: `void func() throw(decltype(throw 12)
> > *)`
> Good point, looks like I need a full fledged parser to catch 100% or the
> cases -- or we could ignore these corner cases.
At the very least, we should have test cases showing what the behavior is with
a big FIXME around this code, should you decide to keep it. I'm not keen on the
idea of this being part of a fixit that may destroy well-defined user code.
Same for the assumptions about the location of right parens. That code looks
equally broken even without multiple `throw` tokens in the stream. Consider:
`void func() throw(int(int));`
http://reviews.llvm.org/D18575
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
