On Mon, 29 Aug 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
> The patch correctly diagnoses an uninitalized use of 'regnum'
> in store_bit_field_1 but also diagnoses an uninitialized use of
> best_match::m_best_candidate_len which I've chosen to silence
> without analyzing it in detail (I'm doing that right now).
To followup myself this is
cpp_hashnode *best_macro = bmm.get_best_meaningful_candidate ();
/* If a macro is the closest so far to NAME, use it, creating an
identifier tree node for it. */
if (best_macro)
{
const char *id = (const char *)best_macro->ident.str;
tree macro_as_identifier
= get_identifier_with_length (id, best_macro->ident.len);
bm.set_best_so_far (macro_as_identifier,
bmm.get_best_distance (),
bmm.get_best_candidate_length ());
and
edit_distance_t get_cutoff (size_t candidate_len) const
{
return ::get_edit_distance_cutoff (m_goal_len, candidate_len);
}
candidate_t get_best_meaningful_candidate () const
{
/* If the edit distance is too high, the suggestion is likely to be
meaningless. */
if (m_best_candidate)
{
edit_distance_t cutoff = get_cutoff (m_best_candidate_len);
if (m_best_distance > cutoff)
return NULL;
}
where the connection between m_best_candidate_len being initialized
when m_best_candidate is not NULL is not visible. I think it's
OK to initialize the member together with m_best_candidate here.
I'm reducing a testcase, but not sure where that will go.
Richard.
