aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantMemberInitCheck.cpp:57
"initializer for base class %0 is redundant")
- << Init->getTypeSourceInfo()->getType()
+ << Construct->getType()
<< FixItHint::CreateRemoval(Init->getSourceRange());
----------------
malcolm.parsons wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Why is it more correct to use the CXXConstructExpr type information rather
> > than the CXXCtorInitializer?
> Something to do with templates and namespaces.
>
> In the bug report, `CXXCtorInitializer` had type `std::__1::bitset<128>` and
> `CXXConstructExpr` had type `std::bitset<MAX_SUBTARGET_FEATURES>`.
>
> I don't know why.
I believe it's because `__1` is an inline namespace, and the printing policy
matters. IIRC, there's the `SuppressUnwrittenScope` policy data member, that if
you set it to true, it won't print the inline or anonymous namespace when
printing types.
We should understand why there's a difference before applying this change. I
think using the CXXCtorInitializer's type is more correct than using the
CXXConstructExpr's type (due to implicit type conversions). Given that the
printing policy controls whether inline namespaces are printed, I would have
expected these both to print without the inline namespace (the type changed,
but not the printing policy) -- the fact that the behavior differs makes me
worried there's a bug somewhere else and this fix is masking it.
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26118
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
