On Jul 15, 2012, at 10:14 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The patch replaces the 'track the last DeclRefExpr we saw' technique with a
> separate pass to classify the DeclRefExprs as use or initialization. Fixing
> this exposed some "false" positives on some benchmarking code which looks
> like:
>
> void f() {
> volatile int n;
> for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
> n += f();
> }
>
> ... so the patch classifies compound-assignments as neither initialization
> nor use (it leaves the variable uninitialized if it was before, and leaves it
> initialized if it was before).
>
Hi Richard,
One comment on this last point. We tend to like avoiding the uninitialized
value taint propagating after the first use to avoid a cascade of warnings.
Your last comment here implies that were we to flag a warning at "n += f()" we
might also flag another warning later if 'n' is used again. Is that true?
Ted
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
