oleg.smolsky added a comment. In D114995#3198033 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3198033>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D114995#3183240 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3183240>, > @malcolm.parsons wrote: > >> In D114995#3180475 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3180475>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> was there a reason we didn't cover that case originally or was it an >>> oversight/left for future work? >> >> It was left for future work - by only considering the initializer list of >> the default constructor, clang-tidy did not have to work out what to do when >> the constructors don't agree on what value the member init should have. > > Thank you for verifying! @oleg.smolsky -- this would be a very useful test > case to add, btw. Yep, done. PLAL Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
