steakhal wrote:
Thank you all participating, and especially for @Endilll committing the fix as
cc3fd1974696a792ba70ba670ed761937cd0735c.
Consider my
[issue](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71417#issuecomment-1897925793)
resolved. :)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/71417
AaronBallman wrote:
> > I had an offline discussion with @Endilll during my morning office hours
> > today, and our current plan is:
> >
> > 1. Remove `Implicit` from the enumeration, rename `Call` and `List` to
> > `ParenList` and `BraceList`, respectively
> > 2. Add a new bit to the
AaronBallman wrote:
I had an offline discussion with @Endilll during my morning office hours today,
and our current plan is:
1) Remove `Implicit` from the enumeration, rename `Call` and `List` to
`ParenList` and `BraceList`, respectively
2) Add a new bit to the bit-field for `CXXNewExpr` to
tomasz-kaminski-sonarsource wrote:
And what will the desired use of having the distinction `Implicit` vs `NoInit`
in its current form?
The current differentiates between the allocation object of class `Trivial` and
`int[2]` where there, actually there is none in the emitted code. And proper
cor3ntin wrote:
Would it be helpful for you if we:
- Introduce `getInitializationStyleAsWritten` and `hasInitializerAsWritten`
methods (that map `Implicit` to `NoInit`)
- Take the opportunity to rename `Call/List` to `Paren/BraceInitialization` ?
steakhal wrote:
The commit _"[clang][NFC] Refactor `CXXNewExpr::InitializationStyle` (re-land)
(#71417)"_
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/e929f0694aeb5f8cdbd2369db6189d28bb6fbcf3
appears to be a functional change, as it has a side effect on the following
test code:
```diff
diff
https://github.com/Endilll closed
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
