On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 11:40 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
I don't think adding noexcept(false) to such dtors would be
good. They are surely not meant to throw.
Well, take 1399220 as a common enough pattern, an OUString +=
"something" and OUString::operator+= calls rtl_uString_newConcatAsciiL
and that has a throw std::length_error. If it makes sense to claim this
dtor won't throw cause that's just not going to happen in the real
world, then it might make as much sense to remove the throw from +=
instead.
Anyhow, if any member of a class or base-class has a dtor thats
nothrow(false) that'll poison the whole hierarchy so they are
implicitly nothrow(false) too, right ? So, in your dynamic exception
specification changes mail you mentioned "For dtors, the dynamic
exception specification would be replaced with an explicit
nothrow(false)." so it might end up that lots of these warning melt
away again if that affects something sufficiently lowlevel ? Maybe
worry about these again after those changes land.
C.
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.