steakhal wrote:
> Please let us know if this change is disruptive to you though, thanks!
I'm not really well versed about c++ initialization, so I asked my collage
@tomasz-kaminski-sonarsource, to double-check how `CXXNewExpr` initialization
is done per standard.
I'll try to summarize what we discussed:
The enum we had in the past described the syntax of the new expression.
However, after the introduction of the `Implicit` style kind, this enum tries
to encode the semantics aspect as well.
Note that the name of the previous kind `CallInit` was misleading, and it
should have been called `ParenInit` denoting that in the spelling `(...)`'s
were used. So, in the past, `InitializationStyle` did not try to encode whether
or not an actual call would be present or not.
To illustrate this, here is a small example:
```c++
struct Derived {
int data1;
int data2;
};
void top() {
// CURRENT STYLE, EXPECTED BEHAVIOR
// ------------- -----------------
// const auto *p = new int(); // Call (aka. parens), good (zero inits)
// const auto *p = new int; // None, good (uninitialized)
// const auto *p = new Derived; // Implicit, but still leaves everything
uninitialized
// const auto *p = new int[10]; // None, good (uninitialized)
// const auto *p = new Derived[10]; // Implicit, but still leaves everything
uninitialized
}
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71417
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
