Szelethus marked an inline comment as done.
Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/Analysis/cxx-uninitialized-object-inheritance.cpp:802
+struct DynTBase2 {
+ int x; // expected-note{{uninitialized field 'static_cast<struct
DynTDerived2 *>(this->bptr)->DynTBase2::x'}}
+};
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Szelethus wrote:
> > > NoQ wrote:
> > > > Mmm, what's the value of casting to derived type and then specifying
> > > > that we access the field of the base type anyway? Isn't `this->bptr->x`
> > > > exactly what the user needs to know(?)
> > > True, but it's a one tough job to write `this->bptr->x` here and also a
> > > correct note message for...
> > I guess don't try too hard, eg. say if it requires something of non-linear
> > complexity it's probably not worth it (not because it'd be slow but because
> > it'd be an indication that it might be not worth the effort).
> I actually invested some effort into this and I'm fairly certain I could pull
> it off with O(n) complexity, but I'll probably just place a TODO in the code
> for now, as I have other things I really want to get fixed first.
I think I'll leave this as is, it could be done, but it wouldn't be nice, and
it wouldn't make anyone's life significantly easier. At least this report tells
you the dynamic type of `this->bptr`, so I guess that's something.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D50892
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
