Closed sbchisholm closed 4 years ago
Merging #41 into master will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #41 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 93.79% 93.79%
=======================================
Files 11 11
Lines 451 451
=======================================
Hits 423 423
Misses 28 28
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
include/bredis/impl/protocol.ipp | 100.00% <100.00%> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 395830c...5d33ee5. Read the comment docs.
I wasn't able to reproduce it, but it seems your explanation is correct. I'll merge the PR.
Thank you for your contribution!
We encountered an issue when compiling with clang-tidy >= 8.0 and C++17, constructing the
boost::static_visitor
, in this casecount_unwrapper_t
, with the initializer-list, the compiler complains about trying to access a protected destructor:gcc 10.1, boost 1.69, clang 10.0, bredis 395830c1b68d47ff54b93724ac22e2255765015d
The following explanation describes how
{}
vs()
differs in how each of them access ctor's and in our case dtor's of the parent classes: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56367480/should-this-code-fail-to-compile-in-c17/56367566#56367566