[chrchr-github]

No description provided.

[dmcppcheck]

AI review

The fix works for the common forms, void f() [const|noexcept|noexcept(true)] override|final try {...} catch(...) {...}, and I found no regressions. It only handles a single override or final directly after ) or after a keyword, though. Two forms with override still give the same syntaxError:

• a ref-qualifier: void i() & override try, void i() && override try, void i() const & override try
• a trailing return type: auto k() -> void override try

The base version fails on these forms without override as well (void i() & try, auto k() -> void try), so they are a gap that already existed rather than a regression. It is still a gap in the same ticket area. When final or override is used as a variable name before a try inside a function body, the PR gives no new false positive.

Testing

I built cppcheck and testrunner in pr/. ./testrunner TestTokenizer TestGarbage TestSymbolDatabase TestSimplifyTokens TestClass passed with 0 failures.

Handled correctly, no errors:

• const override
• noexcept override
• noexcept(true) override
• override final
• int final = 0; try {...} inside a function body
• int override[2]; ... try {...} inside a function body

Still syntaxError, ./cppcheck -q x.cpp in each case:

struct E : B {
    void i() & override try {} catch (...) {}
};

error: syntax error: keyword 'try' is not allowed in class/struct/union/enum scope [syntaxError]

These forms give the same error:

• void i() && override try {} catch (...) {}
• void i() const & override try {} catch (...) {}
• auto k() -> void override try {} catch (...) {}

Without override, the base version also rejects void i() & try {} catch (...) {} and auto k() -> void try {} catch (...) {}, so this limitation existed before the PR.

---

Automated review of aa91b3a by Claude. The pull request was built and tested locally.

[dmcppcheck]

AI review

This loop still misses override or final after a ref-qualifier or a trailing return type. These still produce syntaxError:

struct E : B { void i() & override try {} catch (...) {} };
struct F : B { auto k() -> void override try {} catch (...) {} };

&/&& and -> type before try already fail in base without override, so this is a gap that existed before, not a regression. It may still be worth covering here, or noting in the ticket.