ojhunt wrote: > But I don't want to miss cases where a sub-object has a non trivial default > constructor as in https://godbolt.org/z/aq7PosMPa.
Oh absolutely, I am not suggesting the warning be silenced if initialization is non trivial. I'm sorry if I gave that impression - that's a case where the warning is warranted. > I can see the practical aspect of only requiring: > > 1. trivially default constructible type when from outside of the constructor > 2. that the type matches all requirements for being default constructible > except the requirement of a defaulted default constructor, when from the > default constructor. > > What do you think of that approach? In the latter do you mean "if the only reason a type is not default initializable is the constructor doing the bzero we should allow it"? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/170577 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
