ChuanqiXu added a comment. In D108905#2975806 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108905#2975806>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D108905#2975712 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108905#2975712>, @rsmith wrote: > >> No decision as yet, but so far it looks very likely that we'll settle on the >> rule that exceptions cannot have potentially-throwing destructors, and that >> we should reject `throw`s of such types. I don't think that should be >> applied retroactively to C++98, though, because destructors were not >> implicitly non-throwing back then. > > Is the committee comfortable with implementations causing > potentially-throwing exception destructors to trigger `std::terminate`? I > understand that this is a weird question because it implies the use of / > interoperation with an old language standard, but we do need to know how to > compile in C++98 mode, and we may need to demote this to a warning pre-C++23. > If it's not an error in old modes, but the committee doesn't approve of > calling `std::terminate` if it happens, then we still need to compile `catch > (...)` as throwing in case we're interoperating. @rjmccall @rsmith Do you think it makes sense to make `__cxa_end_catch` nounwind conditionally? I mean, in higher standard than C++98, we could make `__cxa_end_catch` nounwind. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108905/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108905 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
