[cfe-dev] CFG and CXXDefaultInitExpr

[Enrico P]

Right, I can see the CXXDefaultInitExpr appearing multiple times when
initializing (C++14) aggregates with braces.

Verifying that a field has an in-class initializer (or that the constructor
has a CXXCtorInitializer for that field) is what I'm currently doing.

Sema::ActOnMemInitializers already takes care of the initialization order.
If the fields appearing in the constructor body aren't ignored until all of
the CXXCtorInitializers have been visited, duplicate warnings may be
issued, hence I was wondering whether the analysis could be done in just
one place.

I guess that for now it would be better to just visit the CFG of a
constructor starting from the statement that follows the last
CFGInitializer, and let Sema::ActOnMemInitializers take care of the rest.

Thanks for the answer!
Enrico

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately yes: a CXXDefaultInitExpr is a placeholder for whichever
> expression was written as the initial value of the member you've left out,
> and that expression doesn't belong to the current context. If you used list
> initialization (braces) to initialize two different objects, you'd end up
> including the initializer expression twice, and the CFG doesn't work right
> if the same Stmt* appears more than once.
>
> That said, I would think that the presence of a CXXDefaultInitExpr would
> be enough to prove that a member variable is initialized. If you're worried
> about initialization order problems, you could either traverse the
> CXXDefaultInitExpr manually or just make a non-flow-sensitive check that
> the initializer expression doesn't reference any member variables defined
> later in the class.
>
> Does that help?
> Jordan
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2013, at 9:19 , Enrico P <epertoso at google.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm doing some work on -Wuninitialized to make it detect the use of
> uninitialized fields within C++ constructor bodies.
> >
> > When the CFGBuilder visits a CXXDefaultInitExpr, it won't visit its
> children because CXXDefaultInitExpr::children() returns an empty
> child_range.
> >
> > Is there any reason for this (maybe related to the comment at line 1108
> of CFG.cpp?), or is it safe to have it return a non-empty child_range?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Enrico
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-dev mailing list
> > cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20131021/9e34f112/attachment.html>