================
@@ -1472,3 +1472,25 @@ template<typename T> struct Outer {
};
};
Outer<int>::Inner outerinner;
+
+void aggregate() {
+ struct B {
+ [[clang::explicit_init]] int f1;
+ };
+
+ struct S : B { // expected-warning {{uninitialized}}
+ int f2;
+ int f3 [[clang::explicit_init]];
+ };
+
+#if __cplusplus >= 202002L
+ S a({}, 0); // expected-warning {{'f1' is left uninitialized}}
expected-warning {{'f3' is left uninitialized}}
+#endif
+ S b{.f3 = 1}; // expected-warning {{'f1' is left uninitialized}}
+ S c{.f2 = 5}; // expected-warning {{'f1' is left uninitialized}}
expected-warning {{'f3' is left uninitialized}} expected-warning {{'f3' is left
uninitialized}}
+ c = {{}, 0}; // expected-warning {{'f1' is left uninitialized}}
expected-warning {{'f3' is left uninitialized}}
+ S d; // expected-warning {{uninitialized}} expected-note {{constructor}}
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
Okay, fair point, and I agree.
I still feel that using this consistently in C++17 would be a challenge, but
people are also free to disable this warning in C++17 **or** if they like
multi-line initialization in C++20.
To give the discussions a more useful spin: I suspect we could remove some of
these warnings if we are willing to pay for a more advanced analysis in Clang.
It's technically possible to check that those fields of a struct are
initialized before being read in certain scenarios. The most obvious one is
when all initializations are inside a single function. Currently, we would warn
when the struct is created, but with the more advanced analysis we may remove
this restriction in "obviously safe" cases, which is a strict improvement.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/102040
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
