Szelethus marked an inline comment as done.
Szelethus added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Analysis/uninit-vals.c:181
void testUseHalfPoint() {
- struct Point p = getHalfPoint(); // expected-note{{Calling 'getHalfPoint'}}
- // expected-note@-1{{Returning from
'getHalfPoint'}}
- // expected-note@-2{{'p' initialized here}}
+ struct Point p = getHalfPoint(); // expected-note{{'p' initialized here}}
use(p); // expected-warning{{uninitialized}}
----------------
Szelethus wrote:
> NoQ wrote:
> > Huh, so there's not even a note in `getHalfPoint()`, just
> > calling..returning? This definitely needs some attention from
> > `NoStoreFuncVisitor`.
> >
> > Generally, i think this is probably the single place where we do really
> > want some info about what happens in `getHalfPoint()`. The report that
> > consists only of "p is initialized..." and "...p is uninitialized" is
> > pretty weird. Btw, could you write down the full warning text in this test?
> > How bad this actually is?
> Wild idea: `UninitializedObjectChecker` exposes it's main logic through a
> header file, how about we use it when we find a read of an uninitialized
> region?
Passed-by-value struct argument contains uninitialized data (e.g., field: 'y')
Quite good imo.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64232/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64232
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
