ckennelly added a comment.

In D90392#2362327 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362327>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> In D90392#2362308 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362308>, @ckennelly wrote:
>
>> In D90392#2362118 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392#2362118>, @njames93 wrote:
>>
>>> IIUC, this is handling the case where `Ptr.reset(new int)` which is 
>>> different to `Ptr.reset(new int())` because the former doesn't initialise 
>>> the int while the latter default(zero) initialises it.
>>> If that's correct I still think we should still warn about this case, but 
>>> don't suggest an auto-fix as that will change behaviour.
>>> Maybe put a note explaining why it can't be auto-fixed.
>>
>> I disagree with printing a warning but not a fix.
>>
>> These uses should migrate to 
>> `std::make_unique_for_overwrite`/`std::make_shared_for_overwrite`.  I am 
>> planning on sending a follow-up patch for that but want to avoid the 
>> existing make-unique/make-shared checks try to migrate default 
>> initialization use cases.
>
> Reminder that there is more than one version of C++ standard, and users are 
> not obligated to be using some particular version, and the checks should not 
> be making that decision for user.

Understood, but replacing `std::unique_ptr<int>(new int)` with 
`std::make_unique<int>()` does change program behavior.  Once the code migrates 
to value initialization, it can be hard to determine later whether that 
initialization ends up being unnecessary when C++20 or an analogue for 
`std::make_unique_for_overwrite` is available.

I'm hesitant to nudge users towards the behavior change when alternatives would 
be available (maintain the status quo, have C++20, preadopt a 
`make_unique_for_overwrite` helper like we do with this clang-tidy for 
pre-C++14 builds).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90392

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to