Szelethus added a comment.
I read https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/structured_binding carefully,
and there are a number of interesting rules that might deserve their own test
case, even if this isn't the patch where you solve that issue, or believe that
the solution handles it without the need for special case handling.
Just to name a few, you seem to not have test cases for when the bindings are
cv-qualified. If you declare structured bindings like this:
struct s {
int a;
int b;
};
void a(void) {
s tst;
auto [i, j](tst); // Syntax (3) according to cppreference
int x = i; // expected-warning{{Assigned value is garbage or undefined}}
}
then the bindings are direct initialized, not copy initialized.
I'm not sure that the actual standard
<https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.struct.bind#:structured_binding_declaration> has
anything that cppreference doesn't, but maybe we could give it a glance.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/uninit-structured-binding-struct.cpp:10
+
+void a(void) {
+ s tst;
----------------
In the long run, it might make your own life easier to create more talkative
test function names, like `testPODDecomp` or smt like that.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127643/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127643
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
