================
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=c,unsafe -Wdefault-const-init %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=c,unsafe -Wc++-compat %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=unsafe %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=c -Wdefault-const-init
-Wno-default-const-init-unsafe %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=good -Wno-default-const-init-unsafe %s
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify=cxx -x c++ %s
+// good-no-diagnostics
+
+struct A { int i; };
+struct S{ const int i; }; // unsafe-note 2 {{member 'i' declared
'const' here}} \
+ cxx-note 3 {{default constructor of
'S' is implicitly deleted because field 'i' of const-qualified type 'const int'
would not be initialized}}
+struct T { struct S s; }; // cxx-note {{default constructor of
'T' is implicitly deleted because field 's' has a deleted default constructor}}
+struct U { struct S s; const int j; };
----------------
shafik wrote:
How about
```cpp
struct Z {
struct A a;
const int j;
};
```
To test whether order makes a difference.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137166
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
