Re: [PATCH c++] Reduce -Weffc++ Rule 12 false positives

[Dirk Mueller <dmueller at suse dot de>]

On Tuesday, 7. February 2006 23:25, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> but, that it not what your code implements.  It implements something
> different if I read your patch correctly.
>
> +struct B
> +{
> +  B() {}
> +
> +  int bogus;         // { dg-bogus "should be initialized in the member" }
> +  nontriv right;     // { dg-warning "should be initialized in the member"
> } +};
>
> We should be warning to the effect that B::bogus is not initialized.

Ah, thats what you worry about. Ok, modify the testcase: 

struct B
{
  B() { bogus = 42; }

  int bogus;         // { dg-bogus "should be initialized in the member" }
  nontriv right;     // { dg-warning "should be initialized in the member"
};


What you refer to might make *sense* (even though partially constructed 
classes are still okay in optimized code) though, but thats not what the 
-Weffc++ warning implemented (neither before nor now, and not even intended).  


Dirk