On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:42 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Hans Wennborg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The attached patch makes the warnings about uninitialized fields >>> include the field name. This makes the wording more informative, and >>> more consistent with the other uninitialized warnings. > > Looks reasonable (though is there a particular use case where the > caret diagnostics don't indicate the right variable, etc? that makes > having the name in the diagnostic particularly useful?)
No, I just wanted it to be consistent with the other warnings, and I found it more informative when the name was included too. >>> I'm not sure if we really need to do the LookupResult thing here; I >>> copy-pasted it from SemaDecl.cpp:6329. It would be great if someone >>> could comment on that. > > So far as I can tell this doesn't appear to be necessary in either > case. Using DRE->getNameInfo().getName() directly in the > SemaDecl.cpp:6329 situation doesn't regress any tests. I'd be inclined > to change it there & use the same technique for your patch. At least > that way if someone figures out why it was necessary, they'll ought to > be able to add a test. Sounds good to me. > (consider this sign off, if you like - if you want a more informed > opinion on the LookupResult issue, you could wait for that) Thanks for the review! Committed in r164366. - Hans _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
