NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Ok, let's commit this and see how to fix it later. I still think it's more important to come up with clear rules of who is responsible for initializing fields than making sure our warnings are properly grouped together. > ideally we wouldn't like to have a warning for an object (`t`) and a separate > warning for it's field (`t.bptr.x`) I don't quite understand this. How would the first warning look like? What would it warn about? ================ Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:669-671 + Optional<nonloc::LazyCompoundVal> CurrentObject = getObjectVal(Ctor, Context); + if (!CurrentObject) + return false; ---------------- All uses of `getObjectVal` so far are followed by retrieving the parent region from the `LazyCompoundVal`. Why do you need to obtain the `LazyCompoundVal` in the first place, i.e. do the second `getSVal` "for '*this'" in `getObjectVal`? Why not just operate over the this-region on the current Store? I think there isn't even a guarantee that these two regions are the same. Like, in this case they probably will be the same, but we shouldn't rely on that. https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
