[Bug c++/96121] New: Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[Bug c++/96121] New: Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[antoshkka at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

            Bug ID: 96121
           Summary: Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed
           Product: gcc
           Version: 11.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: diagnostic
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: antoshkka at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Consider the example:

struct A { A(); };
struct B { B(A); };

struct composed2 {
    B b_;
    A a_;
    composed2() : b_(a_)  {}
};


GCC does not diagnose the uninitialized variable `a_` usage with -Wall and
-Wextra. Some other compiler do diagnose:

warning: field 'a_' is uninitialized when used here [-Wuninitialized]
    composed2() : b_(a_)  {}
                     ^

Godbolt playground: https://godbolt.org/z/AbqzjR

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2020-07-08

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is probably a dup of one of the many bugs about missing -Wuninitialized
diagnostics in mem-initializers.

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
gcc warns for this at the level of actual instructions, not user code. Since A
is empty, nothing uninitialized is getting copied.

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And this translation unit doesn't actually generate any code at all, so the way
the warning is currently implemented has no chance of even looking at it.

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[antoshkka at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

--- Comment #4 from Antony Polukhin <antoshkka at gmail dot com> ---
Adding members and usage does not make a difference
https://godbolt.org/z/VommHu

struct A {
  A();
  int i;
};
struct B {
  B(A);
  int i;
};

struct composed2 {
  B b_;
  A a_;
  composed2() : b_(a_) {}
};

auto test() {
    return composed2{};
}

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[glisse at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Yes, then we are back to the fact that it works for A=int but not for A a class
containing an int.

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying not diagnosed

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Depends on|                            |19808
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|                            |easyhack

--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Probably a dup of bug 19808. There is an unfinished patch there that does the
check in the FE. That would side-step issues with A being empty (you just need
to check the order in which things are initialized in the mem-list).


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808
[Bug 19808] miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member
initializer list in constructor

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying in member initialized list not diagnosed

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying in member initialized list not diagnosed

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek <mpolacek@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2

commit r12-5391-g0790c8aacdfb4fd096aa580dae0fe49172c43ab2
Author: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Nov 10 20:07:24 2020 -0500

    c++: Implement -Wuninitialized for mem-initializers (redux) [PR19808]

    2021 update: Last year I posted a version of this patch:
    <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/559162.html>
    but it didn't make it in.  The main objection seemed to be that the
    patch tried to do too much, and overlapped with the ME uninitialized
    warnings.  Since the patch used walk_tree without any data flow info,
    it issued false positives for things like a(0 ? b : 42) and similar.

    I'll admit I've been dreading resurrecting this because of the lack
    of clarity about where we should warn about what.  On the other hand,
    I think we really should do something about this.  So I've simplified
    the original patch as much as it seemed reasonable.  For instance, it
    doesn't even attempt to handle cases like "a((b = 42)), c(b)" -- for
    these I simply give up for the whole mem-initializer (but who writes
    code like that, anyway?).  I also give up when a member is initialized
    with a function call, because we don't know what the call could do.
    See Wuninitialized-17.C, for which clang emits a false positive but
    we don't.  I remember having a hard time dealing with initializer lists
    in my previous patch, so now I only handle simple a{b} cases, but no
    more.  It turned out that this abridged version still warns about 90%
    cases where users would expect a warning.

    More complicated cases are left for the ME, which, for unused inline
    functions, will only warn with -fkeep-inline-functions, but so be it.
    (This is bug 21678.)

    This patch implements the long-desired -Wuninitialized warning for
    member initializer lists, so that the front end can detect bugs like

      struct A {
        int a;
        int b;
        A() : b(1), a(b) { }
      };

    where the field 'b' is used uninitialized because the order of member
    initializers in the member initializer list is irrelevant; what matters
    is the order of declarations in the class definition.

    I've implemented this by keeping a hash set holding fields that are not
    initialized yet, so at first it will be {a, b}, and after initializing
    'a' it will be {b} and so on.  Then I use walk_tree to walk the
    initializer and if we see that an uninitialized object is used, we warn.
    Of course, when we use the address of the object, we may not warn:

      struct B {
        int &r;
        int *p;
        int a;
        B() : r(a), p(&a), a(1) { } // ok
      };

    Likewise, don't warn in unevaluated contexts such as sizeof.  Classes
    without an explicit initializer may still be initialized by their
    default constructors; whether or not something is considered initialized
    is handled in perform_member_init, see member_initialized_p.

            PR c++/19808
            PR c++/96121

    gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

            * init.c (perform_member_init): Remove a forward declaration.
            Walk the initializer using find_uninit_fields_r.  New parameter
            to track uninitialized fields.  If a member is initialized,
            remove it from the hash set.
            (perform_target_ctor): Return the initializer.
            (struct find_uninit_data): New class.
            (find_uninit_fields_r): New function.
            (find_uninit_fields): New function.
            (emit_mem_initializers): Keep and initialize a set holding fields
            that are not initialized.  When handling delegating constructors,
            walk the constructor tree using find_uninit_fields_r.  Also when
            initializing base clases.  Pass uninitialized down to
            perform_member_init.

    gcc/ChangeLog:

            * doc/invoke.texi: Update documentation for -Wuninitialized.
            * tree.c (stabilize_reference): Set location.

    gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-14.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-15.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-16.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-17.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-18.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-19.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-20.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-21.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-22.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-23.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-24.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-25.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-26.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-27.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-28.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-29.C: New test.
            * g++.dg/warn/Wuninitialized-30.C: New test.

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying in member initialized list not diagnosed

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121
Bug 96121 depends on bug 19808, which changed state.

Bug 19808 Summary: miss a warning about uninitialized member usage in member initializer list in constructor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19808

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

[Bug c++/96121] Uninitialized variable copying in member initialized list not diagnosed

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96121

Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
At last, implemented.