int x = x;
GCC disables its warnings on this construct as a way of indicating that
the programmer intentionally wants the variable to be uninitialized.
Only the warning on the initializer is turned off in this iteration.
This makes the code a lot more ugly, but starts commenting the
surprising behavior here. This is a WIP, I want to refactor it
substantially for clarity, and to determine whether subsequent warnings
should be suppressed or not.
llvm-svn: 128894
1) Change the CFG to include the DeclStmt for conditional variables, instead of using the condition itself as a faux DeclStmt.
2) Update ExprEngine (the static analyzer) to understand (1), so not to regress.
3) Update UninitializedValues.cpp to initialize all tracked variables to Uninitialized at the start of the function/method.
4) Only use the SelfReferenceChecker (SemaDecl.cpp) on global variables, leaving the dataflow analysis to handle other cases.
The combination of (1) and (3) allows the dataflow-based -Wuninitialized to find self-init problems when the initializer
contained control-flow.
llvm-svn: 128858
and flesh out the existing uninitialized testing for field initializers.
The tests come from Richard's original patch, but I've cleaned them up
a bit and ordered them more naturally.
Also, I added a test for the most simple base case:
int x = x;
And it turns out we miss this one! =[ That and another bad FIXME on the
field initializer checking are left in the test.
llvm-svn: 128394
Chandler Carruth