[cfe-dev] clang-tidy and static analysis for exception safety

[Martin Böhme via cfe-dev]

On 18 March 2017 at 17:11, Jonas Toth <jonas.toth at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will try to work on a prototype for the clear cases, so we will find out
> where problems are.
> The review with the remarks from aaron is here https://reviews.llvm.org/
> D30746
>

Thanks!

I see Aaron's comment there that the analysis would need to be
path-sensitive, but unfortunately he doesn't explain why (or I missed the
explanation). Maybe you want to ask him again?


> One more thing that came me to mind: Defaulted operations have the
> noexcept specification from the compiler to they? If yes, there should
> already exist some logic for marking functions/operations noexcept.
>

Not something I know anything about -- probably best to simply go digging
in the source.


> I think that check should be incremental anyway, so the absolute clear
> cases will be done first. If that works out, more can be added in my
> opinion.
>

 Probably a good idea for checks like this. You'll want to be biased
towards false negatives, i.e. if the check outputs a message, it's very
likely to be a real problem.

-- 

Martin Böhme

Software Engineer

mboehme at google.com

Google Germany GmbH
Erika-Mann-Straße 33
80363 München

Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle

Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg

Diese E-Mail ist vertraulich. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind,
leiten Sie diese bitte nicht weiter, informieren Sie den Absender und
löschen Sie die E-Mail und alle Anhänge. Vielen Dank.



This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the right addressee please do
not forward it, please inform the sender, and please erase this e-mail
including any attachments. Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170320/e32e6693/attachment.html>