add explicit default initialization to DemangledNameInfo to remove warning

[charles-zablit]

#140762 introduces some compilation warnings in lldb/unittests/Core/MangledTest.cpp. This patch adds explicit default initialization to DemangledNameInfo to suppress those warnings.

We only had the default initialization values to PrefixRange and SuffixRange because they are the only optional fields of the structure.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-lldb

Author: Charles Zablit (charles-zablit)

Changes

#140762 introduces some compilation warnings in lldb/unittests/Core/MangledTest.cpp. This patch adds explicit default initialization to DemangledNameInfo to suppress those warnings.

We only had the default initialization values to PrefixRange and SuffixRange because they are the only optional fields of the structure.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/141790.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) lldb/include/lldb/Core/DemangledNameInfo.h (+2-2)

diff --git a/lldb/include/lldb/Core/DemangledNameInfo.h b/lldb/include/lldb/Core/DemangledNameInfo.h
index ab9bb3e211b66..e26adc7035a56 100644
--- a/lldb/include/lldb/Core/DemangledNameInfo.h
+++ b/lldb/include/lldb/Core/DemangledNameInfo.h
@@ -62,12 +62,12 @@ struct DemangledNameInfo {
   /// Indicates the [start, end) of the function's prefix. This is a
   /// catch-all range for anything that is not tracked by the rest of
   /// the pairs.
-  std::pair<size_t, size_t> PrefixRange;
+  std::pair<size_t, size_t> PrefixRange{};
 
   /// Indicates the [start, end) of the function's suffix. This is a
   /// catch-all range for anything that is not tracked by the rest of
   /// the pairs.
-  std::pair<size_t, size_t> SuffixRange;
+  std::pair<size_t, size_t> SuffixRange{};
 
   /// Returns \c true if this object holds a valid basename range.
   bool hasBasename() const {

[JDevlieghere]

The warning in question is -Wmissing-field-initializers, which is warning that in the unit test not all fields of this struct are explicitly initialized. Even if these fields are optional, I think this is the wrong way to address this: we should either update the unit tests to initialize those fields by adding {}, {}, or add a constructor with default arguments.

[charles-zablit]

The warning in question is -Wmissing-field-initializers, which is warning that in the unit test not all fields of this struct are explicitly initialized. Even if these fields are optional, I think this is the wrong way to address this: we should either update the unit tests to initialize those fields by adding {}, {}, or add a constructor with default arguments.

I agree, this is more explicit.

[JDevlieghere]

Thanks! LGTM.

[kazutakahirata]

@charles-zablit I've verified that this PR fixes check-lldb-unit in my local build. Thank you for fixing this!

[charles-zablit]

Please feel free to merge when possible, as I do not have commit access yet.