PiotrZSL wrote: " Checks that class members are initialized in constructors (implicitly or explicitly). Reports constructors or classes where class members are not initialized." This is exacly what cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init is doing.
And provide same warnings: ``` 10:7: warning: constructor does not initialize these fields: X [cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init] 50:8: warning: constructor does not initialize these fields: Y [cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init] ``` The only warning that cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init is doing does not provide is for implicitly deleted constructor, wiht is fine. I didn't found any rule about this in Google codding standard. Currently I dont see any reason for this check existence, and any benefit that it could bring over cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init. If somehow cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init does not cover some important part, then basicly cppcoreguidelines-pro-type-member-init should be extended, or in extreame case just renamed into "bugprone-uninitialized-member", extended, and aliased into cppcoreguidelines or any other standards. Doing same thing from scrach and generate same kind of warnings is basicly reundant. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65189 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
