=== on 14 Oct 2014, 17:51:53 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~samuel.mercier] please correct the following

* Add a See section to the description listing the appropriate MISRA number
* Fill in Applicability.
* Make sure the appropriate MISRA C and MISRA {cpp} fields on the references tab are filled in


=== on 14 Oct 2014, 18:34:18 Ann Campbell wrote:
Also [~samuel.mercier] I don't think Maintainability is appropriate here. The risks are 

* both caller and callee destroy the object - undefined behavior (likely runtime crash)
* neither caller nor callee destroys the object - memory leak
Since the worse outcome is a crash, I would associate this to Reliability

=== on 14 Oct 2014, 20:15:26 Freddy Mallet wrote:
And if this is associated to the Reliability category, then the tag 'pitfall' should be replaced by 'bug'

=== on 17 Oct 2014, 09:12:45 Samuel Mercier wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] caller cannot destroys the object, unless it also catches the exception it has thrown. But I agree about the memory leak, so I updated to Reliablity / Exception handling

=== on 20 Apr 2015, 10:00:42 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] this rule has tag "bug" and severity "critical", but not enabled by default. Is it on purpose?

=== on 20 Apr 2015, 10:09:05 Ann Campbell wrote:
It was on purpose [~evgeny.mandrikov], since this strikes me as potentially an issue of house style. If you think it is not, feel free to set it on by default.

=== on 11 May 2015, 20:24:44 Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] I don't see any valid reason for catching/throwing an exception by pointer, , while opposite is highly recommended, so don't see any reason to not activate this rule by default.

