aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D157879#4604233 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879#4604233>, @aeubanks wrote:
> ah I thought this was in `-Wall` but it's not
>
> the struct is
>
> struct Foo {
> const void* buffer;
> uint32_t capacity;
> uint32_t reserved;
> };
>
> where `reserved` isn't explicitly initialized. that seems like reasonable
> code, but I suppose we can just explicitly initialize `reserved` here
Thank you for sharing the use case, that's actually a rather interesting one!
Leaving the identifier `reserved` off the field would trigger a
`-Wmissing-declarations` diagnostic (which is on by default). You can leave the
field named and use an in-class initializer for it and that should silence the
diagnostic. But I kind of wonder if we want to special case fields named
`reserved` or similar (`wReserved`, `reserved2`, etc)?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D157879
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
