zequanwu added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp:1590-1600
+ // flush all const reference uses diags
+ for (const auto &P : constRefUses) {
+ const VarDecl *vd = P.first;
+ const MappedType &V = P.second;
+
+ UsesVec *vec = V.getPointer();
+ for (const auto &U : *vec) {
----------------
aeubanks wrote:
> zequanwu wrote:
> > rsmith wrote:
> > > Do we want any idiomatic-self-init special-case handling here? For
> > > example:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > void f(const int&);
> > > void g() {
> > > int a = a;
> > > f(a);
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Following the logic above, should that warn on the `int a = a;` not on
> > > the `f(a)` call? Or should we warn only on the `f(a)` call itself in this
> > > case? It seems like it might be surprising to say that `a` is
> > > "uninitialized" here, since an initializer was provided, even though it
> > > was a garbage one.
> > For this case, I think we should warn at `int a = a`, like the comment in
> > `DiagnoseUninitializedUse` said,
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/clang/lib/Sema/AnalysisBasedWarnings.cpp#L986-L996
> >
> > `f(a)` is considered as accessing `a`.
> Doesn't `DiagnoseUninitializedUse` say that we shouldn't warn at `int a = a`?
The last sentence of the comment says that `int a = a` left `a` as
uninitialized state, and we should warn at `int a = a` if there is an access of
`a` in uninitialized state. Otherwise, we don't need to warn.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79895
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
