[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2021-11-19 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 --- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > Reconfirmed with GCC 11. See also pr78391. The patch in pr19808 comment 29 > was either never committed or even submitted, and the other patch for the > same bug

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2021-04-02 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2018-09-20 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch CC|

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2018-02-06 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- But -Weffc++ also warns about members that don't need to be initialized, so is useless in detecting uninitialized data.

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2018-02-06 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2018-02-01 Thread msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/81674] gcc cannot detect missing initialisers for fields in constructors

2017-08-04 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81674 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- There are several bugs about this already, please search for duplicates.