njames93 added a comment. In D72448#1844309 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448#1844309>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D72448#1844032 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448#1844032>, @njames93 wrote: > > > Hmm a lot of the code in the redundant-string-init check is designed to be > > macro unsafe. Not sure the best way to follow up, discard the old macro > > behaviour or keep it > > > Designed to be macro unsafe, or just didn't consider macros in the first > place? I'm not seeing anything that makes me think macros were taken into > account, but maybe you're looking at something different from me. Do you have > an example of where you think something was designed to be macro unsafe? This is one of the test cases #define M(x) x #define N { std::string s = ""; } // CHECK-FIXES: #define N { std::string s = ""; } void h() { templ<int>(); templ<double>(); M({ std::string s = ""; }) // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:19: warning: redundant string initialization // CHECK-FIXES: M({ std::string s; }) N // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: redundant string initialization // CHECK-FIXES: N N // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:3: warning: redundant string initialization // CHECK-FIXES: N } // further down #define EMPTY_STR "" void j() { std::string a(EMPTY_STR); // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:15: warning: redundant string initialization // CHECK-FIXES: std::string a; std::string b = (EMPTY_STR); // CHECK-MESSAGES: [[@LINE-1]]:15: warning: redundant string initialization // CHECK-FIXES: std::string b; Looks like they knew the behaviour they wanted back then Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72448 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
