AaronBallman wrote: > > This case might be reasonable to handle differently, but I'm on the fence > > too. There's two cases for structure members, broadly: > > > > 1. Don't initialize the `const` field, don't ever read the `const` field. > > 2. Rely on the fact that you can overwrite a `const` if the top-level > > object was not declared `const`. > > Yes, this appears to be the case for the 10 or so unique cases that I found > in the kernel. > > > In both cases, the code is valid and so the warning is a false positive. In > > both cases, the code is dangerous and the warning is useful. So I kind of > > think this is a case where we split the field diagnostic out into its own > > group. So we'd have `-Wdefault-const-init-field` which covers field > > initialization cases, and it would be grouped under `-Wdefault-const-init` > > which covers both fields and variables. WDYT? > > Yes, that seems like a reasonable place to start. I would be happy to test > such a change.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137961 should hopefully address your concerns https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137166 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
