steveire added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/modernize-make-shared.cpp:51 // CHECK-FIXES: std::shared_ptr<int> P1 = std::make_shared<int>(); + std::shared_ptr<int> P2 = std::shared_ptr<int>(new int); ---------------- ckennelly wrote: > steveire wrote: > > I'm a bit confused. Why don't we want to transform this? > `std::make_shared<int>()` is equivalent to `std::shared_ptr<int>(new int())`. > This value initializes (read: zeroes out the value). > > The statement here is only default initializing (read: leaves the value > uninitialized). For this use case, we should use > `std::make_shared_for_overwrite` when it is available. I see. Did you consider an option to transform these anyway? It seems at least as likely that for real-world code bases they are not initialized accidentally (as opposed to being a deliberate choice as assumed here). Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
