AaronBallman wrote: > > > Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not > > > initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it > > > using in class member initialization. > > > > > > Yeah, this might be one better to mark as Intentional in the static > > analysis tool; there really isn't a sensible default value to begin with, > > so getting sanitizer coverage seems like a better approach IMO. > > Yes but we have a default constructor, then maybe we should not have one > then? It looks like it is only used for `TYPE_SWITCH` and in that case if we > need it then maybe there should be some explanatory comments detailing why > this is so folks finding this in the future can understand the use.
Explanatory comments make sense to me, I think it's fine to add those https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153671 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
