malcolm.parsons added a comment. In D114995#3180475 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995#3180475>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> was there a reason we didn't cover that case originally or was it an > oversight/left for future work? It was left for future work - by only considering the initializer list of the default constructor, clang-tidy did not have to work out what to do when the constructors don't agree on what value the member init should have. The next step towards the full solution is to handle classes with only one non-special constructor. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114995 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
