aaron.ballman added a comment.
I'm not certain we have the semantics of `__declspec(nothrow)` exactly correct
-- a simple test shows that `__attribute__((nothrow))`, `__declspec(nothrow)`,
and `noexcept(true)` are subtly different.
When I run this with MSVC 2017, the terminate handler is not called and the
application continues rather than terminates, but Clang calls the terminate
handler.
#include <exception>
#include <iostream>
__declspec(nothrow) void f() { throw 1; }
int main() {
std::set_terminate([]() {
std::cout << "terminate called" << std::endl;
std::abort();
});
f();
}
However, in this case terminate is called using GCC 6.3 and Clang.
#include <exception>
#include <iostream>
__attribute__((nothrow)) void f() { throw 1; }
int main() {
std::set_terminate([]() {
std::cout << "terminate called" << std::endl;
std::abort();
});
f();
}
For your test case: GCC accepts (with __attribute__), MSVC accepts (with
__declspec), and EDG rejects `Derived() noexcept = default` because of
incompatible exception specs. I think it's probably reasonable for us to accept
despite the slight semantic differences.
@STL_MSFT -- do you think `__declspec(nothrow)` calling the terminate handler
in Clang is a bug?
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp:170
+ if (EST == EST_None && Method->hasAttr<NoThrowAttr>()) {
+ EST = EST_BasicNoexcept;
----------------
Elide the braces.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/nothrow-as-noexcept-ctor.cpp:3
+
+
+// expected-no-diagnostics
----------------
You can remove the spurious newline from the test.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D38209
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
