================
@@ -1111,6 +1116,10 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedMember(Decl *D) {
} else if (!T.isCXX98PODType(Context))
data().PlainOldData = false;
+ if (Field->hasAttr<ExplicitInitAttr>() && !Field->hasInClassInitializer())
{
+ setHasUninitializedExplicitInitFields(true);
+ }
----------------
higher-performance wrote:
Oh wow, done -- thanks for the catch, looks like this slipped through. I
thought I had a test for this, but it seems like the test didn't catch it
because there was _also_ an explicit field that _didn't_ have an in-class
initializer, so the flag was set anyway. I modified another one of the tests to
account for this too.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102040
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
