aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-noexcept.rst:6-8 +The check converts dynamic exception specifications, e.g., +``throw()``, ``throw(<exception>[,...])``, or ``throw(...)``, to +``noexcept``, ``noexcept(false)``, blank, or a user defined macro. ---------------- hintonda wrote: > alexfh wrote: > > alexfh wrote: > > > This description doesn't say why `noexcept` is better. > > This still needs to be addressed. > Absolutely, but I'll probably do all the code changes first while it's still > fresh in my mind. Since we're talking about documentation, should we note that this check does produce a subtle, obscure change in behavior? When you have `throw()` on a function signature and that function winds up throwing something, this would result in `std::unexpected()` being called. When that gets modified to be `noexcept`, the call to `std::unexpected()` is replaced by a call to `std::terminate()`. This hopefully does not break any code, but we may want to document the fact that failing to honor a dynamic exception specification is slightly different than failing to honor an exception specification so that users are aware of the slightly different semantics. https://reviews.llvm.org/D20693 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
