malcolm.parsons marked an inline comment as done. malcolm.parsons added a comment.
In D57852#1388526 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D57852#1388526>, @JonasToth wrote: > How are the semantics for `enum class` in this case? No enumerators are present in the initialisation or the fixit, so there is no difference. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/modernize-use-default-member-init-assignment.cpp:172 + // CHECK-FIXES: PositiveValueEnum() {} + Enum e; + // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:8: warning: use default member initializer for 'e' ---------------- JonasToth wrote: > What happens for the case `enum Enum { Foo = 3 }; /* ... */ : e() /* ... */`, > is that even well formed? > I feel a testcase along those lines is missing. There are no errors or warnings from gcc or clang for that code. Adding a testcase wouldn't increase coverage. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57852/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57852 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
