whisperity added a comment. In D106431#2896334 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896334>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D106431#2896206 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431#2896206>, @whisperity > wrote: > >> The problem with enums is that translating //zero// (0, 0.0, nullptr, >> etc...) to the enum case is not always apparent. A warning **should** always >> be given. And //if// you can find a zero member in the enum, we can report >> an automated suggestion for that. > > I think we shouldn't give any fix-it for enumerations. Zero doesn't always > mean "the right default value" -- for example, another common idiom is for > the *last* member of the enumeration to be a sentinel value. I agree with you, but we need to consider that the checker works in a way that it gives the "zero" for integers. If we are here, was that the right decision? I mean... I wonder how much //consistency// we should shoot for. (`nullptr` for the pointers as default is at least somewhat sensible.) But definitely, the //warning// must be given, that is true. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106431 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
