lebedev.ri added a comment. In D90392#2362308 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362308>, @ckennelly wrote:
> 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. Reminder that there is more than one version of C++ standard, and users are not obligated to be using some particular version, and the checks should not be making that decision for user. 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
