serge-sans-paille added a comment.
In D156337#4558410 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156337#4558410>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> Was there an RFC for this extension to the attribute? (There doesn't need to
> be one, I'm just wondering if there's more background info on what's driving
> this patch forward and discussion around the design.)
>
> I'd like some more details about how this attribute impacts class
> hierarchies. e.g., if you put the attribute on the base class, does it impact
> the derived class members as well, or just the base class members? Also, what
> should happen in a case like this:
>
> template <typename Ty>
> void func() {
> Ty Val; // Does this know it's uninitialized? Or did we lose that
> information because this isn't a type attribute?
> }
>
> struct __attribute__((uninitialized)) S { int value; };
>
> int main() {
> func<S>();
> }
All very relevant topics. Concerning inheritance, I'd say that if the base
class is marked as uninitialized and the child class is not, then base members
are uninitialized and child members are not.
Concerning your example, I'd expect `Val` to be uninitialized as it's type has
the according attribute, but I also don't quite understand "Or did we lose that
information because this isn't a type attribute?"
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156337/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D156337
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
