Thanks, landed r162198. - Hans
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
