baloghadamsoftware marked 4 inline comments as done.
baloghadamsoftware added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/cppcoreguidelines-prefer-member-initializer-assignment.cpp:29
+public:
+ Simple2() : n (0) {
+ x = 0.0;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> By my reading of the core guideline
> (https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c48-prefer-in-class-initializers-to-member-initializers-in-constructors-for-constant-initializers),
> it looks like `n` should also be diagnosed because all of the constructors
> in the class initialize the member to the same constant value. Is there a
> reason to deviate from the rule (or have I missed something)?
>
> Also, I'd like to see a test case like:
> ```
> class C {
> int n;
> public:
> C() { n = 0; }
> explicit C(int) { n = 12; }
> };
> ```
This check only cares for initializations inside the body (rule `C.49`, but if
the proper fix is to convert them to default member initializer according to
rule `C.48` then we follow that rule in the fix). For initializations
implemented as constructor member initializers but according to `C.48` they
should have been implemented as default member initializers we already have
check `modernize-use-default-member-init`.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
