schittir added a comment. In D146847#4220717 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146847#4220717>, @jrtc27 wrote:
> The field should just be deleted. D126742 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126742> > added it without any uses, and I don't know what the original intent was. > Maybe it was used before the bitfields were added and it stuck around rather > than being GC'ed. I don't know why Coverity would care about this though when > it's never read from, there's nothing wrong with that, unless the warning is > in fact that the field is entirely unreferenced? Yea, that would make sense. I am up for deleting the field. Coverity does indeed complaining about uninitialized use of the SR.PolicyBitMask when calling push_back - surprisingly nothing about the field being unreferenced. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146847/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146847 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
