mjacobse wrote:
Thanks, your `struct B` example raises a very good point, because with this PR
no warning would be thrown anymore for the promotion of `f` to `double` in the
initialization of member `B::d`. Using parantheses
```c++
B(float f) : d(f) {}
```
would bring back the warning. Something similar happens with local variable
initialization too:
```c++
void test(float f) {
double d0 = f;
double d1(f);
double d2{f};
}
```
Before this PR, all three initializations give the warning. After this PR, `d0`
and `d1` give the warning but `d2` doesn't.
I could see an argument for `d1` and `d2` not to issue a warning, but them
behaving differently does seem wrong. For the member initializer list it seems
more clear-cut that the warning is desirable, with the declaration as `double`
and the initialization being split apart.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/159992
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
