From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 95ECC3AA7C8A; Thu,  5 Aug 2021 14:17:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 95ECC3AA7C8A
From: "deco33000 at yandex dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/101780] Missing initializers whereas structure has default
 initializers
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 14:17:49 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: deco33000 at yandex dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101780-4-uVTnXnHpRu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101780-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 14:17:49 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101780

--- Comment #2 from KL <deco33000 at yandex dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)

Thanks,

I thought that this warning is fine if it helps to assure the developer that
everything is still under control: that if the analyzer sees that a field is
left uninitialized (with no default value), it should tell it in this warni=
ng.


> How would P,Q,R be left uninitialized?

Only if the analyzer has the info that, at this stage, there no default val=
ue
for the field.=20
It could be interesting in the context of a partially initialized struct (by
mistake, intended by the developer?)?

It help with quality of code.

> It doesn't say anything about undefined behaviour.

In case the developer forgot to properly initialize a member, it *can* lead=
 to
undefined behavior. So, it is good from the compiler to warn about it as we=
ll.=