aaron.ballman added a comment. In D114995#3183240 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3183240>, @malcolm.parsons wrote:
> In D114995#3180475 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3180475>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> was there a reason we didn't cover that case originally or was it an >> oversight/left for future work? > > It was left for future work - by only considering the initializer list of the > default constructor, clang-tidy did not have to work out what to do when the > constructors don't agree on what value the member init should have. Thank you for verifying! @oleg.smolsky -- this would be a very useful test case to add, btw. In D114995#3181486 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3181486>, @oleg.smolsky wrote: > Sure, adding an option is easy, if that's the consensus. What would you call > it? Since we left this for future work, I don't think we need to add a configuration option unless a user finds a need for one. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
