--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/clang/test/SemaCXX/ms-exception-spec.cpp	Thu Feb 13 15:10:13 2020 +0900
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++11 %s -fsyntax-only -verify -fms-compatibility -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -std=c++17 %s -fsyntax-only -verify -fms-compatibility -fexceptions -fcxx-exceptions
+
+// FIXME: Should -fms-compatibility soften these errors into warnings to match
+// MSVC? In practice, MSVC never implemented dynamic exception specifiers, so
+// there isn't much Windows code in the wild that uses them.
+#if __cplusplus >= 201703L
+// expected-error@+3 {{ISO C++17 does not allow dynamic exception specifications}}
+// expected-note@+2 {{use 'noexcept(false)' instead}}
+#endif
+void f() throw(...) { }
+
+namespace PR28080 {
+struct S;           // expected-note {{forward declaration}}
+#if __cplusplus >= 201703L
+// expected-error@+3 {{ISO C++17 does not allow dynamic exception specifications}}
+// expected-note@+2 {{use 'noexcept(false)' instead}}
+#endif
+void fn() throw(S); // expected-warning {{incomplete type}} expected-note{{previous declaration}}
+void fn() throw();  // expected-warning {{does not match previous declaration}}
+}
+
+template <typename T> struct FooPtr {
+  template <typename U> FooPtr(U *p) : m_pT(nullptr) {}
+
+  template <>
+      // FIXME: It would be better if this note pointed at the primary template
+      // above.
+      // expected-note@+1 {{previous declaration is here}}
+  FooPtr(T *pInterface) throw() // expected-warning {{exception specification in declaration does not match previous declaration}}
+      : m_pT(pInterface) {}
+
+  T *m_pT;
+};
+struct Bar {};
+template struct FooPtr<Bar>; // expected-note {{requested here}}