Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2017 Archives by date, by thread · List index


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


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.