lebedev.ri added a comment. In D90392#2362118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362118>, @njames93 wrote:
> IIUC, this is handling the case where `Ptr.reset(new int)` which is different > to `Ptr.reset(new int())` because the former doesn't initialise the int while > the latter default(zero) initialises it. > If that's correct I still think we should still warn about this case, but > don't suggest an auto-fix as that will change behaviour. > Maybe put a note explaining why it can't be auto-fixed. +1 Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
