| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This reinstates r337627, reverted in r337671, with a fix to correctly
handle the lvalueness of array subscript expressions on pointers.
llvm-svn: 337726
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
checks."
This reverts commit r337627.
After the change, clang started producing invalid warning on the following code:
struct foo {
foo(char *x) : x_(&x[10]) {}
private:
char *x_;
};
1.cpp:2:21: warning: initializing pointer member 'x_' with the stack address of parameter 'x' [-Wdangling-field]
llvm-svn: 337671
|
| |
|
|
| |
llvm-svn: 337627
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48325
llvm-svn: 336994
|
|
|
This checker analyzes C++ constructor calls, and reports uninitialized fields.
Due to the nature of this problem (uninitialized fields after an object
construction), this checker doesn't search for bugs, but rather is a tool to
enforce a specific programming model where every field needs to be initialized.
This checker lands in alpha for now, and a number of followup patches will be
made to reduce false negatives and to make it easier for the user to understand
what rules the checker relies on, eg. whether a derived class' constructor is
responsible for initializing inherited data members or whether it should be
handled in the base class' constructor.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D45532
llvm-svn: 334935
|
