================
@@ -8197,6 +8197,16 @@ def err_address_space_qualified_new : Error<
def err_address_space_qualified_delete : Error<
"'delete' cannot delete objects of type %0 in address space '%1'">;
+def note_default_init_const_member : Note<
+ "member %0 declared 'const' here">;
+def warn_default_init_const : Warning<
+ "default initialization of an object of type %0%select{| with const member}1
"
+ "is incompatible with C++">,
+ InGroup<DefaultConstInit>, DefaultIgnore;
+def warn_default_init_const_unsafe : Warning<
+ "default initialization of an object of type %0%select{| with const member}1
"
+ "leaves the object uninitialized and is incompatible with C++">,
----------------
delcypher wrote:
@AaronBallman I just came across this diagnostic. Why did we chose to mention
the incompatibility with C++? I found it odd because the diagnostic is showing
up when building a C source file. If the code was in an inline function in a
header (that could be consumed from C++) then I think it would make sense to
mention incompatibility with C++ but if it's in a C source file it makes less
sense to me. When I'm building C source files I don't typically think (or care)
about what would happen if I were to build the source file with C++ instead of
C.
Really not a huge deal but I'd like to understand the reasoning and here.
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
