You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've tested clang-tidy 17 on some codebases, and there seems to be false positives (except if I'm missing something) with performance-noexcept-move-constructor and performance-noexcept-swap checks, at least in templated code that annotates the move constructor or swap with a conditional noexcept (when using traits, otherwise it is properly handled).
… noexcept expressions
The previous code was pretty messy and treated value dependant
expressions which could not be evaluated the same as if they evaluted to
`false`. Which was obviously not correct.
We now check if we can evaluate the dependant expressions and if not we
truthfully return that we don't know if the function is declared as
`noexcept` or not.
This fixesllvm#68101
Hello,
I've tested clang-tidy 17 on some codebases, and there seems to be false positives (except if I'm missing something) with
performance-noexcept-move-constructor
andperformance-noexcept-swap
checks, at least in templated code that annotates the move constructor or swap with a conditionalnoexcept
(when using traits, otherwise it is properly handled).I've written an extremely simple piece of code that triggers the issue:
https://godbolt.org/z/59EhaEeda
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: