PR16638, DR1552: the exception specification on an implicitly-declared

'operator delete' or 'operator delete[]' is an explicit exception
specification. Therefore we should diagnose 'void operator delete(void*)'
instead of 'void operator delete(void*) noexcept'.

This diagnostic remains an ExtWarn, since in practice people don't always
include the exception specification in such a declaration.


git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk@201002 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 3 deletions

diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaExceptionSpec.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaExceptionSpec.cpp
index 2eee07c0af..1c2a8dbc30 100644
--- a/lib/Sema/SemaExceptionSpec.cpp
+++ b/lib/Sema/SemaExceptionSpec.cpp
@@ -140,10 +140,13 @@ static bool hasImplicitExceptionSpec(FunctionDecl *Decl) {
       Decl->getDeclName().getCXXOverloadedOperator() != OO_Array_Delete)
     return false;
 
-  // If the user didn't declare the function, its exception specification must
-  // be implicit.
+  // For a function that the user didn't declare:
+  //  - if this is a destructor, its exception specification is implicit.
+  //  - if this is 'operator delete' or 'operator delete[]', the exception
+  //    specification is as-if an explicit exception specification was given
+  //    (per [basic.stc.dynamic]p2).
   if (!Decl->getTypeSourceInfo())
-    return true;
+    return isa<CXXDestructorDecl>(Decl);
 
   const FunctionProtoType *Ty =
     Decl->getTypeSourceInfo()->getType()->getAs<FunctionProtoType>();