ioeric added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43230#1006469, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D43230#1006104, @ioeric wrote: > > > But I think it's safe and probably easier to rely on default values of > > primitive types like int, bool etc > > > It's not always safe, as primitive types are sometimes left uninitialized > (e.g. when constructed on the stack) and reading an uninitialized value is UB. Oh, you are absolutely right! I I think l had protos get into my mind... > > >> but do we really want to make this a requirement for future changes or even >> in our coding style? > > I think we should, default values are less surprising than UB. Other people > may disagree, though. > @sammccall , @hokein , WDYT? Should we always initialize primitive types in > our code? I think it would probably depend on whether we could find a sensible default value for a field (e.g. is 0 a better default value than UINT_MAX for line number?) and whether we expect users to always initialize a field (e.g. would it be better to pollute the field instead of providing a default value so that uninitialized values would be caught more easily). Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D43230 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
