Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object.cpp:879-902
+struct LambdaWrapper {
+ void *func; // no-crash
+ int dontGetFilteredByNonPedanticMode = 0;
+
+ LambdaWrapper(void *ptr) : func(ptr) {} // expected-warning{{1 uninitialized
field}}
+};
+
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> Szelethus wrote:
> > I'm 99% sure this is a FP, but it doesn't originate from the checker.
> > Shouldn't `*ptr` be undef after the end of the code block as `lambda`'s
> > lifetime ends?
> >
> > Nevertheless, it did cause a crash, so here's a quick fix for it.
> I'm pretty sure that all sorts of contents of `lambda` aka `*ptr` are
> undefined once it goes out of scope. Moreover, `ptr` is now a dangling
> pointer, and reading from it would cause undefined behavior. I'm not sure if
> the analyzer actually models this though.
>
> But on the other hand, even if it didn't go out of scope, i don't really see
> where field `a` was initialized here.
>
> Soo what makes you think it's a false positive?
> Soo what makes you think it's a false positive?
Poor choice of words I guess. Its not a false positive (as the entire region of
that lambda is undefined), but rather a false negative, as the analyzer doesn't
pick up that `*ptr` is a dangling pointer.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51057
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
