tahonermann added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/AST/Stmt.h:2606-2607
enum { INIT, CONDVAR, COND, INC, BODY, END_EXPR };
- Stmt* SubExprs[END_EXPR]; // SubExprs[INIT] is an expression or declstmt.
+ Stmt *SubExprs[END_EXPR] = {
+ nullptr}; // SubExprs[INIT] is an expression or declstmt.
SourceLocation LParenLoc, RParenLoc;
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> I don't think this initialization is necessary. The constructor for `ForStmt`
> initializes all of the valid elements:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/87c5a3e203ae3643bc13c9a13917b92a657f4358/clang/lib/AST/Stmt.cpp#L1024
>
> The `EmptyShell` constructor does not initialize anything but that's because
> it is piecemeal initialized by the AST importer, but all of its fields are
> also initialized:
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/87c5a3e203ae3643bc13c9a13917b92a657f4358/clang/lib/Serialization/ASTReaderStmt.cpp#L296
Declarations like this are common in the AST. I'm curious while static analysis
flagged this one in particular. Perhaps it identified a path where one or more
of the elements don't get initialized? If so, this would be a good find and a
fix should be applied to that path.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158488/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D158488
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
