rsmith accepted this revision.
rsmith added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Seems reasonable. I think we need similar handling for `CXXDefaultInitExpr`,
for cases like this:
int a;
struct X { int b = ++a; };
int c = X{} + a;
================
Comment at: clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-unsequenced.cpp:282-283
+ void test() {
+ // TODO: Consider adding a remark indicating the function call where
+ // the default argument was used.
+ int b;
----------------
I think it's important that we handle this in the near future (though I don't
mind if you'd like to submit this patch as-is and deal with this as a
follow-on). For a case like:
```
void f(int, int = a++);
// ... some time later ...
f(a);
```
... a warning that only gives the location of the default argument is not
useful. We need to show both locations (and potentially a path through multiple
default arguments, I suppose; yuck).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81003/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D81003
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
