------- Comment #11 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-06-03 09:18 ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > I've been experimenting with this patch, which warns if there is a missing > > mem-initializer for a scalar. > > > > It gives a false positive for cases were the member is assigned to in the > > constructor body, or otherwise initialized before use, but it's a start, and > > has already helped me find some missing mem-initializers in real code. > > Nice but I am afraid there may be too many false positives.
Yes, I'm not proposing it in that state. It's just an experiment but has been useful for me already. > And what is > different between this and the -Weffc++ warning given just below it? -Weffc++ also enables dozens of other warnings, most of which I don't find useful. It is about good style, not dangerous code, and I don't like the compiler to enforce style. In this specific case, the Weffc++ warning complains if *any* member has no mem-initializer. I only care about POD members which will be uninitialized, I don't want to add a mem-initializer for e.g. a std::string member which has a default constructor. > > + case OPT_Wmeminit: > > + warn_meminit = value; > > + break; > > + > > You do not need this. This is handled automatically when you defined Var in > the > opt files. Ah OK, thanks! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2972
