flx added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16517#336148, @alexfh wrote:
> A high-level comment: I think, this comment > <http://reviews.llvm.org/D10553#267535> still applies. I'm also slightly > concerned about having this check in misc-, since the check isn't universally > applicable (e.g. based on a couple of discussions, I guess LLVM community > would likely not welcome this rule), but I'd like to leave misc- enabled by > default. So moving the check to cppcoreguidelines- makes sense to me. > > More substantial comments later. Sounds good to me. If I'm reading the original comment correctly what's missing would be this part: "Issue a diagnostic when constructing an object of a trivially constructible type without () or {} to initialize its members. To fix: Add () or {}. " Is that correct? Please let me know if that changes the name of the check and whether the next step should be moving the check or we'll do that after a detailed review of the specifics. Thanks, Felix http://reviews.llvm.org/D16517 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
