Szelethus added a comment.
> I'll think about that a bit more; it might be worth it to track such deferred
> subregions in a state trait and drain it whenever we pop back to an explicit
> constructor.
There are so many things to consider, like the following case:
struct DynTBase {};
struct DynTDerived : DynTBase {
// TODO: we'd expect the note: {{uninitialized field 'this->x'}}
int x; // no-note
};
struct DynamicTypeTest {
DynTBase *bptr;
int i = 0;
// TODO: we'd expect the warning: {{1 uninitialized field}}
DynamicTypeTest(DynTBase *bptr) : bptr(bptr) {} // no-warning
};
void f() {
DynTDerived d;
DynamicTypeTest t(&d);
};
As of now, the checker misses this one.
We talked about two approaches so far, the one already in the checker and the
one I proposed now. I think the current implementation solves this issue a lot
more naturally -- `isNonUnionUninit` has to be changed so that the fields
dynamic type is checked rather then its static type.
The proposed method would have a tough time dealing with this -- we don't want
an error for `DynTDerived::DynTDerived()`, since it's a compiler generated
ctor, but ideally we wouldn't like to have a warning for an object (`t`) and a
separate warning for it's field (`t.bptr.x`), but I'm afraid this new approach
would make this a necessity.
So, bottom line, there are a bunch of `TODO`s in the code to make sure this
issue is not forgotten, I strongly believe that we need a separate discussion
for this, if you'd agree :)
================
Comment at: lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/UninitializedObjectChecker.cpp:674
+ const LocationContext *LC = Context.getLocationContext();
+ while ((LC = LC->getParent())) {
+
----------------
NoQ wrote:
> george.karpenkov wrote:
> > nit: could we have `while (LC)` followed by `LC = LC->getParent()` ? Do you
> > intentionally skip the first location context?
> I guess the predicate we're checking is trivially true for the current
> location context.
Completely missed this inline, sorry!
As @NoQ said, since this checker only fires after a constructor call, the first
location context will surely be that, and I'm only checking whether the current
ctor was called by another.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48436
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
