omtcyfz added inline comments. ================ Comment at: clang-rename/tool/ClangRename.cpp:65 @@ +64,3 @@ + + RenameAllInfo() : Offset(0) {} +}; ---------------- omtcyfz wrote: > vmiklos wrote: > > omtcyfz wrote: > > > AFAIK there's no need to do that, integer types are by default > > > initialized with 0, aren't they? > > Are you sure? Here is a minimal version that shows what goes wrong when > > that's not initialized explicitly: http://pastebin.com/raw/2ZsUgWf6 The > > "Use of uninitialised value of size 8" goes away with an explicit > > initialization. > Well, in this case - yes. But in that case the default unsigned constructor > isn't called. > > What I meant is: > > ``` > RenameAllInfo() : Offset(0) {} > ``` > - > > ``` > RenameAllInfo() : Offset() {} > ``` > > In this case Offset is default-constructed. However, it is also true that one > might argue that it's less "trivial" (whatever "triviality" definition would > be :]). I guess it's fine to leave it like this. > Well, in this case - yes. But in that case the default unsigned constructor > isn't called.
<to prevent confusion> -> Well, in the case you sent - yes. But there is no default-construction there as there is no constructor with initializer list at all. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23198 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits