1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
|
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -fsyntax-only -verify -fms-extensions -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions
// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++17 %s -fsyntax-only -verify -fms-extensions -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions
// FIXME: Should -fms-compatibility soften these errors into warnings to match
// MSVC? In practice, MSVC never implemented dynamic exception specifiers, so
// there isn't much Windows code in the wild that uses them.
#if __cplusplus >= 201703L
// expected-error@+3 {{ISO C++17 does not allow dynamic exception specifications}}
// expected-note@+2 {{use 'noexcept(false)' instead}}
#endif
void f() throw(...) { }
namespace PR28080 {
struct S; // expected-note {{forward declaration}}
#if __cplusplus >= 201703L
// expected-error@+3 {{ISO C++17 does not allow dynamic exception specifications}}
// expected-note@+2 {{use 'noexcept(false)' instead}}
#endif
void fn() throw(S); // expected-warning {{incomplete type}} expected-note{{previous declaration}}
void fn() throw(); // expected-warning {{does not match previous declaration}}
}
template <typename T> struct FooPtr {
template <typename U> FooPtr(U *p) : m_pT(nullptr) {}
template <>
// FIXME: It would be better if this note pointed at the primary template
// above.
// expected-note@+1 {{previous declaration is here}}
FooPtr(T *pInterface) throw() // expected-warning {{exception specification in declaration does not match previous declaration}}
: m_pT(pInterface) {}
T *m_pT;
};
struct Bar {};
template struct FooPtr<Bar>; // expected-note {{requested here}}
|
