On 2016-01-29, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 29 January 2016 at 14:06, dvd wrote: >> Is this a totally waste of time and energy? Or it could be useful (even if not >> 100% accurate)? > > I was surprised not to see any mention of C++98 exception > specifications in your mail. I didn't mention it because it is now deprecated and my brain automatically switched to an attributes based approach. > They aren't statically checked, but I don't see a need to invent a new > attribute to re-declare the information they can already provide. Do > you simply want to avoid the deprecated feature? Yes, but I'm open to any suggestions. > > Are you only checking throw expressions in the function itself, or > transitively checking the attribute on all called functions? The grand plan is to check the attribute on every called function
