Hi,
Jon noticed that for this testcase we don't warn at all even with -Wall,
whereas the code doesn't really make much sense. Turns out that the
warning is currently controlled both by warn_init_self (not part of
-Wall) and OPT_Wuninitialized. Thus Manuel proposes to simply remove the
former, because this isn't the specific case of int x = x which we want
to keep on "supporting" as a GNU extension. Also, as mentioned by Jon,
the user can always leave 'i' out the mem-initializer-list.
Alternately, one may want to use OPT_Winit_self, but then we still have
the issue that -Winit-self is not part of -Wall.
Anyway, I booted and tested the patchlet preferred by Manuel as-is.
Thanks,
Paolo.
///////////////////////////
/cp
2012-09-13 Manuel López-Ibáñez <m...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR c++/53210
* init.c (perform_member_init): Remove warn_init_self check from
"initialized with itself" warning.
/testsuite
2012-09-13 Manuel López-Ibáñez <m...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR c++/53210
* g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-self.C: New.
Index: testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-self.C
===================================================================
--- testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-self.C (revision 0)
+++ testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-self.C (revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// PR c++/53210
+// { dg-options "-Wuninitialized" }
+
+struct S
+{
+ S(int i) : j(j) { } // { dg-warning "is initialized with itself" }
+ int j;
+};
Index: cp/init.c
===================================================================
--- cp/init.c (revision 191245)
+++ cp/init.c (working copy)
@@ -571,7 +571,7 @@ perform_member_init (tree member, tree init)
if (decl == error_mark_node)
return;
- if (warn_init_self && init && TREE_CODE (init) == TREE_LIST
+ if (init && TREE_CODE (init) == TREE_LIST
&& TREE_CHAIN (init) == NULL_TREE)
{
tree val = TREE_VALUE (init);
