C++: Add cpp/uninitialized-local test
#20407
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,42 @@ | ||||||
| struct S { | ||||||
| int a; | ||||||
| int b; | ||||||
| int c; | ||||||
| unsigned long *d; | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| union { | ||||||
| struct { | ||||||
| const char *e; | ||||||
| int f; | ||||||
| S *g; | ||||||
| const char *h; | ||||||
| int i; | ||||||
| bool j; | ||||||
| bool k; | ||||||
| const char *l; | ||||||
| char **m; | ||||||
| } n; | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| struct { | ||||||
| bool o; | ||||||
| bool p; | ||||||
| } q; | ||||||
| } r; | ||||||
| }; | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| int too_many_constants_init(S *s); | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| char *too_many_constants(const char *h, bool k, int i) { | ||||||
| const char *e = ""; | ||||||
| char l[64] = ""; | ||||||
| char *m; | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| S s[] = { | ||||||
| {.a = 0, .c = 0, .d = nullptr, .r = {.n = {.e = e, .f = 1, .g = nullptr, .h = h, .i = i, .j = false, .k = k, .l = l, .m = &m}}}, | ||||||
| {.a = 0, .c = 0, .d = nullptr, .r = {.q = {.o = true, .p = true}}} | ||||||
| }; | ||||||
|
|
||||||
| too_many_constants_init(s); | ||||||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Now you need to define what a constant is, because the aggregate here clearly isn't. Can we not go down this rabbit hole, please.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't see the problem, but ok. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| return m; // GOOD - initialized by too_many_constants_init | ||||||
| } | ||||||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it would be nice with a small comment explaining what the interesting thing being tested here is. Something with too many constants? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nothing anymore, after the extractor fix I merged yesterday. This test is just here to make sure we do not regress.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then is is testing something interesting right? That we don't regress for some specific case. I'm suggesting it would be nice to write out what the special thing about this case here is. Is it the number of fields, the nesting, etc? It's not clear to me :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm going to politely refuse, because this is related to internal extractor details. If you want the full story, please follow the link to the internal PR that references this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting writing anything about the extractor, but that we highlight the interesting/key aspect of the test. I've suggested a comment below.