[Clang][Bytecode][NFS] Init Semantics non-static member of class Floating

[shafik]

Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it using in class member initialization.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang

Author: Shafik Yaghmour (shafik)

Changes

Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it using in class member initialization.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/153671.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Floating.h (+1-1)

diff --git a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Floating.h b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Floating.h index 659892e720abf..9561aee434d91 100644 --- a/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Floating.h +++ b/clang/lib/AST/ByteCode/Floating.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ class Floating final { uint64_t Val = 0; uint64_t *Memory; }; - llvm::APFloatBase::Semantics Semantics; + llvm::APFloatBase::Semantics Semantics{}; APFloat getValue() const { unsigned BitWidth = bitWidth(); 

[tbaederr]

This was on purpose, see #144246 (comment)

[AaronBallman]

Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it using in class member initialization.

Yeah, this might be one better to mark as Intentional in the static analysis tool; there really isn't a sensible default value to begin with, so getting sanitizer coverage seems like a better approach IMO.

[shafik]

Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it using in class member initialization.

Yeah, this might be one better to mark as Intentional in the static analysis tool; there really isn't a sensible default value to begin with, so getting sanitizer coverage seems like a better approach IMO.

Yes but we have a default constructor, then maybe we should not have one then? It looks like it is only used for TYPE_SWITCH and in that case if we need it then maybe there should be some explanatory comments detailing why this is so folks finding this in the future can understand the use.

[AaronBallman]

Static analysis flagged that the non-static member Semantics was not initialized by the default default constructor. Fix is to initialize it using in class member initialization.

Yeah, this might be one better to mark as Intentional in the static analysis tool; there really isn't a sensible default value to begin with, so getting sanitizer coverage seems like a better approach IMO.

Yes but we have a default constructor, then maybe we should not have one then? It looks like it is only used for TYPE_SWITCH and in that case if we need it then maybe there should be some explanatory comments detailing why this is so folks finding this in the future can understand the use.

Explanatory comments make sense to me, I think it's fine to add those