baloghadamsoftware added a comment. In D71199#1777887 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#1777887>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D71199#1775083 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199#1775083>, @whisperity > wrote: > > > Can you refresh my memory on whether a rule for "if init expr is constant, > > initialise in class body instead" exists for init list members? If so, this > > will be a funny "two pass needed to fix" kind of check. > > > This worries me as well -- we already have checks that prefer doing an > in-class initialization to using a constructor member initialization list. > How should this check interact with `modernize-use-default-member-init`? This check is to enforce C++ core guideline C.49 while the modernize check enforces guideline C.48. The two must be synchronized, and I think that this new check should do that: for initializations that should be done using in-class initializers according to the other checker this checker must suggest the same. For the rest we should suggest member initializers in the constructor. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71199 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
