From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29989 invoked by alias); 5 May 2003 01:45:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29967 invoked by uid 48); 5 May 2003 01:45:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 01:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030505014555.29966.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, giovannibajo@libero.it, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pere@hungry.com From: giovannibajo@libero.it Reply-To: giovannibajo@libero.it, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, giovannibajo@libero.it, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, pere@hungry.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/2972: [2003-03-05] [diagnostic] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 List-Id: Old Synopsis: [2003-01-02]-Wuninitialized doesn't warn about uninitialized member variable usage New Synopsis: [2003-03-05] [diagnostic] -Wuninitialized could warn about uninitialized member variable usage in constructors State-Changed-From-To: suspended->analyzed State-Changed-By: bajo State-Changed-When: Mon May 5 01:45:55 2003 State-Changed-Why: As far as I can see, this PR is not waiting for the resolution of any issue, so its state should be "analyzed". What Nathan is suggesting is to add a warning for this: -------------------------- struct A { int f,g; A() { f = g; } }; -------------------------- -Wuninitialized could detect the use of g before initialization within the constructor. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=2972