On Mar 15, 2014, at 19:01 , David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Richard Trieu <rtr...@google.com> wrote: >> Quentin, >> >> Clang does not have a warning for uninitialized fields in class methods. >> I've looked before to add a warning to flag any unused fields at the end of >> the a constructor. However, there were good reasons to have uninitialized >> fields, such as having an Init() method later that initializes the fields, >> or a guard variable to protect against uninitialized use. Also, >> -Wuninitialized typically warns on the use of an uninitialized variable, not >> the mere presence of one. >> >> The other idea is to do cross method analysis, either using the control flow >> of a program to determine which methods are used in which order, or testing >> methods against constructors. Such an analysis would likely be too >> expensive, and would be more suited for static analysis. > > We already have at least one cross-method analysis which could > actually be used as the basis for the warning under discussion here: > > -Wunused-member-variable. This warning only fires if there are no > friends and a private member in a situation where all member functions > are defined in one translation unit. So we could use this to show > that there's no initialization of the variable anywhere, but there are > uses of it. (essentially the same as -Wunused-member-variable, except > allow reads as well) The analyzer also catches the particular case in your stripped-down test file, and should do so on real code as long as it's all visible in one translation unit. It'd be a lot harder to make this a cross-TU analysis, of course. Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-users mailing list cfe-users@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
