ckennelly added a comment. In D90392#2362118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362118>, @njames93 wrote:
> IIUC, this is handling the case where `Ptr.reset(new int)` which is different > to `Ptr.reset(new int())` because the former doesn't initialise the int while > the latter default(zero) initialises it. > If that's correct I still think we should still warn about this case, but > don't suggest an auto-fix as that will change behaviour. > Maybe put a note explaining why it can't be auto-fixed. I disagree with printing a warning but not a fix. These uses should migrate to `std::make_unique_for_overwrite`/`std::make_shared_for_overwrite`. I am planning on sending a follow-up patch for that but want to avoid the existing make-unique/make-shared checks try to migrate default initialization use cases. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
