Possibly false negative with class that has no constructor

[T Tanner]

For this code:

class X
{
  int a;
  int b;

  public:
  void init() { a = b = 1; }

};

class Y
{
  X x;
  public:
  Y() {}
};

(which I admit is somewhat dubious), you get this

$ cppcheck --enable=warning test.cc
Checking test.cc ...
test.cc:48:3: warning: Member variable 'Y::x' is not initialized in the constructor. [uninitMemberVar]
  Y() {}
  ^

Now I know that X doesn't have a constructor, and it should. However until it DOES have a constructor, I have no way of initialising the member variable concerned, and I don't think you should warn about it.

I freely admit it is shocking bad that it doesn't have a constructor - the init() method is used to initialise it and that sets up everything fine. But I don't want to fiddle too much with code I don't really understand properly while introducing people to the joys of cppcheck. And cppcheck does provide a warning about classes with no constructors, so that whole thing can be dealt with then.

So I feel this is a bit of a false positive.

Thank you for listening.

[T Tanner]

and sorry for mistyping the title!

[Daniel Marjamäki]

Did you forget to call x.init(); ?