beanz added a comment. In D130055#3662206 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055#3662206>, @Szelethus wrote:
> On another note, `kaboom` is interesting, shouldn't we assume all functions > to be `kaboom` unless proven to be `woot`? I won’t claim to have spent a whole lot of time thinking on this. The idea came to me yesterday and I just wrote it up. My thought process was this: The existing analysis errs to the side of not diagnosing anything it isn’t sure is an issue, so by default operations are ignored. Ignored operations are important in some use cases where initialization might be more than one call, like a builder pattern. They could instead be their own annotation, I propose ‘schroedinger’. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D130055 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
