[ub] Undefined behaviour from uninitialised variables

Nevin Liber nevin at eviloverlord.com
Thu Oct 31 18:20:47 CET 2013


On 31 October 2013 04:16, Christopher Jefferson <chris at bubblescope.net>wrote:

>
>
> Her suggested fix is to introduce a new notation for constructors
> which means "I am not initialising this member on purpose". This will
> allow compilers to then add a warning at a high warning level that a
> member is missed from a constructor.
>

Had I a time machine, this would be my preference (not just missing
members, but all uninitialized variables).  But I agree with Ville that
this would break backwards compatibility.

On the other hand, maybe adding an attribute would help?
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin at eviloverlord.com>  (847) 691-1404
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20131031/1d73a186/attachment.html 


More information about the ub mailing list