13-03-2022, 06:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 13-03-2022, 06:44 AM by kent.dorfman766.)
This is a catch-all
try {;} catch(...) {;}
This is not
try {;} catch(std::exception&) {;}
Our validation tool incorrectly triggers the second case as an embedded catch-all violation in a submodule.
Anyone care to debate?
My take is that the rule checker was implemented by python/java folks who think c++ follows the concept of a base exception class. It does not, since in c++ any type can be an exception parameter.
FWIW, my design heavily leverages c++ shared library .so inclusions which violate autosar eight from sunday even without the erroneous flag.
try {;} catch(...) {;}
This is not
try {;} catch(std::exception&) {;}
Our validation tool incorrectly triggers the second case as an embedded catch-all violation in a submodule.
Anyone care to debate?
My take is that the rule checker was implemented by python/java folks who think c++ follows the concept of a base exception class. It does not, since in c++ any type can be an exception parameter.
FWIW, my design heavily leverages c++ shared library .so inclusions which violate autosar eight from sunday even without the erroneous flag.