malcolm.parsons 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());
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> 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.
The difference isn't just the scope; `MAX_SUBTARGET_FEATURES` became `128` too.
Looking at `Sema::BuildMemInitializer()` didn't help me.
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
