While I hope someone eventually comes up w/ better wording, I think this is an improvement. LGTM.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +namespace references { > >> + int &a = a; // expected-warning{{variable 'a' is uninitialized when > >> used within its own initialization}} > > > > While completely correct (we are initializing the reference to an > > uninitialized reference), I wonder if this will confuse people into > thinking > > there is some kind of copy or uninitialized *value* underlying the > > reference... Is there a better / more clear / more specific warning text > we > > can use here? > > > > "reference 'a' not yet been bound to a value when used within its own > > initialization"? > > "reference 'a' is unbound when used within its own initialization"? > > I like your first suggestion and think it does make the warning > clearer. It annoys me slightly that we'd have to special-case > references when we output the diagnostic (it would look like in the > attached patch), but maybe that's not a big deal. > > Thanks, > Hans >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
