Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

No that sounds like a good change. Lgtm On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:00 AM Sam McCall wrote: > Agreed, I updated the patch. > > For the classes I touched, I also removed init-list initializers that had > no effect (e.g. where the member is ConstString and the initalizer > explictly called the defaul

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

I think we can just add it to LLVM Coding Standards page. I think part of why it's not used more often is that people just don't know about it, so that would help increase the visibility for everyone. On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:51 AM Jim Ingham wrote:

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

Is it worthwhile having some place where we can put this sort of policy so people don't have to follow our mailing list to know this sort of rule? The coding conventions were one possible site, but that fell victim to the code reformat... Jim > On Nov 11, 2016, at 9:11 AM, Zachary Turner wro

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

Yea, I agree doing it for a whole class at a time should be the standard On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:10 AM Jim Ingham wrote: > > > On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits < > lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe just inline the initializations so we don't have to r

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 8:57 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-commits > wrote: > > Maybe just inline the initializations so we don't have to repeat code across > multiple constructors? i.e. > > bool m_is_resolved = false; > > in the header file. I actually like the ability to do this in the heade

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D26528: Fix uninitialized members.

Maybe just inline the initializations so we don't have to repeat code across multiple constructors? i.e. bool m_is_resolved = false; in the header file. On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:54 PM Sam McCall via lldb-commits < lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > sammccall created this revision. > sammcc