https://github.com/erichkeane commented:
There isn't a way to remove the 'request changes' without approval, but I did
some debugging and see what I was assuming was wrong. So I don't have any
concerns on the approach.
However, in using it for the last few hours, I REALLY dislike the diagnostic
that you get. I think the additional effort (which is, IMO, fairly minor once
you have a RecordDecl) of printing the first field is worth it, and necessary
for me. The function should be pretty easy though, and you mentioned not
really having much time, so here's what it should look like more or less:
```
FieldDecl *getFirstExplicitInitField(RecordDecl *RD) {
// Current class field seems worth it, and gives the best answer in 99% of
uses. Other 1% is when there is just fields in bases.
for (FieldDecl *FD : RD) {
if (FD->hasAttr<ExplicitInitAttr>())
return FD;
}
// DFS for bases, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to work much harder to
make sure we do the 'shallowest' field, which, while better diagnostics, is
comparatively rare.
if (auto *CXXRD = dyn_cast<CXXRecordDecl>(RD)) {
for (CXXBaseSpecifier BS : CXXRD->bases()) {
CXXRecordDecl *Base = BS.getType()->getAsCXXRecordDecl();
if (Base->hasUninitializedExplicitInitFields())
if (FieldDecl *FD = getFirstExplicitInitField(Base))
return FD;
}
// TODO: Figure out whether `bases` contains virtual bases, and not just
non-virtual bases. If not, do the above on `RecordDecl::vbases`
}
}
```
That should be within a bit of const-correctness/few typos from doing what you
need.
THOUGH: that makes me wonder, have you played with virtual bases yet? Are we
'sane' for those?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102040
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
