+- MISRA Discussion Forums (https://forum.misra.org.uk)
+-- Forum: MISRA C++ (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Forum: AUTOSAR C++:2014 rules (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=185)
+--- Thread: What is the intention of A15-4-4 (/showthread.php?tid=1624)
What is the intention of A15-4-4 - kth - 23-06-2022
Hi experts,
A15-4-4
Quote:Rule A15-4-4 (required, implementation, automated)
A declaration of non-throwing function shall contain noexcept specification.
provides this example (17-10):
Code:
// ...Code:
void F1(); // Compliant - f1, without noexcept specification, declares to throw
// exceptions implicitly
// ...The implementation of F1 is not provided.
I would assume that a matching implementation of F1() would be, e.g.
Code:
void F1() {
// something ...
throw std::runtime_error{"problem"};
}My questions:
1. Is my implementation of F1 above correct?
2. What should a compliant static analysis tool report, when F1 does not throw?
3. Shall a compliant AUTOSAR C++ checker tool here report a violation (error/warning/...) or is this kind of a hint or note?
4. What shall be reported for the operator()() of a lambda that does not throw and does not explicitly add noexcept (example: auto l = []() { return 42; })?
5. (Bonus question) will a similar check be added to the next version of MISRA C++?
RE: What is the intention of A15-4-4 - misra cpp - 24-06-2022
1: It would be a valid implementation that makes F1 compliant
2: If a function cannot throw but is not marked as noexcept, it should be reported as a violation
3: Autosar does not define how a tool should report a violation
4: Lambdas are treated the same as other functions, so the example should be marked noexcept
5: Its under discussion, but currently we have no plans to include a similar rule