mboehme added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:216-219 - Improved :doc:`bugprone-use-after-move - <clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/use-after-move>` check to also cover constructor - initializers. + <clang-tidy/checks/bugprone/use-after-move>` check: Also cover constructor + initializers. Fix check to understand that constructor arguments are + sequenced when constructor call is written as list-initialization. ---------------- PiotrZSL wrote: > NOTE: Consider: "Improved XYZ check by including coverage for constructor > initializers, and by correcting the handling of constructor arguments when > they are sequenced during a constructor call that is written as > list-initialization." or > "The XYZ check now covers constructor initializers and handles constructor > arguments correctly during list-initialization." > > I just pointing this because I don't like this "check: Also" Makes sense. How about this? (I have more fixes in the pipeline, so I've gone for two separate sentences for the two fixes instead of a single sentence.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D148110/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D148110 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
