================
@@ -1111,6 +1116,10 @@ void CXXRecordDecl::addedMember(Decl *D) {
} else if (!T.isCXX98PODType(Context))
data().PlainOldData = false;
+ if (Field->hasAttr<ExplicitInitAttr>() && !Field->hasInClassInitializer())
{
+ setHasUninitializedExplicitInitFields(true);
+ }
----------------
AaronBallman wrote:
```suggestion
if (Field->hasAttr<ExplicitInitAttr>() && !Field->hasInClassInitializer())
setHasUninitializedExplicitInitFields(true);
```
I thought we decided that the attribute + an in-class initializer is valid and
the user is still expected to explicitly initialize the field?
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
