steakhal added a comment.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.
So, it seems like it depends on the language flavor, but why does CSA behave
differently in C and C++?
This is necessary to understand if we need to fix that instead of patching this
particular checker.
I'd still add a test to the `clang/test/Analysis/unnamedBitfields.c`, something
like this:
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core -verify %s -x c
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=core -verify %s -x c++
typedef struct {
unsigned x : 3;
unsigned : 29;
unsigned y;
} A;
void take_by_value(A a);
void initlistExpr(void) {
A a = {0}; // zero-initializes all fields
take_by_value(a); // no-warning
}
void defaultConstruct(void) {
A a; // uninitialized
a.x = 0;
take_by_value(a); // expected-warning{{Passed-by-value struct argument
contains uninitialized data (e.g., field: 'y')}}
}
---
FYI you can add syntax highlighting for your snippets here by:
```lang=C++
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146194/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D146194
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
