aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/StaticallyConstructedObjectsCheck.cpp:23
+ // Match statically stored objects...
+ hasStaticStorageDuration(),
+ // ... which have C++ constructors...
----------------
The coding standard document is not very clear about what is and is not covered
by this check. For instance, it seems it would also cover `static int i;`
(because `i` is an object that is statically constructed).
Do you intend to cover code that has implicit static storage duration, or only
if it's explicitly declared with the static storage specifier? For instance,
this check currently will flag:
```
struct S { S(); }
static S s1; // Expected
S s2; // Is this expected?
extern S s3; // How about this?
```
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/StaticallyConstructedObjectsCheck.cpp:25
+ // ... which have C++ constructors...
+ hasDescendant(cxxConstructExpr(unless(
+ // ... that are not constexpr.
----------------
So things with implicit constructors that are not constexpr should also be
caught, or only with explicit non-constexpr constructors?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/fuchsia/StaticallyConstructedObjectsCheck.cpp:36
+ diag(D->getLocStart(), "statically constructed objects are disallowed");
+ diag(D->getLocStart(), "if possible, use a constexpr constructor instead",
+ DiagnosticIDs::Note);
----------------
This doesn't seem like a good use of a note (it would make more sense as part
of the diagnostic). Also, shouldn't the guidance be to not use the static
object in the first place?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41546
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
