For better or worse, dynamic exception specifications (the "throw (ex1,
ex2, ex3)" part of function declarations) were deprecated in C++11 and
will be removed from the language entirely in C++17. (The new
alternative being 'noexcept'.)
Consequently, (current trunk builds towards) GCC 7 issues a -Wdeprecated
warning for each dynamic exception specification it encounters. Which
for us means that we'll need to come up with a plan for the exception
specifications across the LO code base, short of bluntly disabling all
kind of -Wdeprecated for GCC 7---which is hardly what we want to do
going forward.
There are four cases to consider:
A URE interface include files.
B Generated UNO API include files.
C "Plain" LO internal code.
D "External" code where LIBO_INTERNAL_ONLY is not defined: SDK
examples, extension code.
Instead of coming up with new macros (after we've successfully removed
SAL_THROW in the past) to hide dynamic exception specifications behind,
my proposal is to remove them completely from all of the code (on
current master towards LO 5.4).
For 3rd-party code interfacing with A+B, that change should be backwards
compatible.
For anything but dtors, removing the dynamic exception specification
implicitly makes the function nothrow(false). For dtors, the dynamic
exception specification would be replaced with an explicit
nothrow(false). An empty 'throw ()' will be reclassified as not a
dynamic exception specification in C++17 (and GCC 7 doesn't emit
-Wdeprecated for it); occurrences of that will remain unchanged.
I'd do the change in the following steps:
1 Remove dynamic exception specifications from A+C (with the help of a
rewriting Clang plugin).
2 Build the D code to demonstrate that changing A is indeed backwards
compatible.
3 Remove dynamic exception specifications from B (by modifying cppumaker).
4 Build the D code to demonstrate that changing B is indeed backwards
compatible.
5 Remove dynamic exception specifications from D.
Now, knowing what kinds of exceptions a function is intended to throw is
useful information, arguably part of the function's interface even.
Removing dynamic exception specifications would thus remove useful
documentation in many cases.
Therefore, I'd introduce a preliminary step
0 With the help of a Clang plugin, find functions with dynamic
exception specifications for which Doxygen-style documentation is
missing, and add such @throws clauses.
I'd not do that step 0 for B (those generated files are not really
human-friendly anyway, and the information is readily available in the
corresponding UNOIDL files), and also generally restrict it to
non-overriding functions.
Thoughts?
Context
- Dynamic Exception Specifications · Stephan Bergmann
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.