CXX11 patch to warn if 'override' is missing on overriding virtual function

[jahanian]

On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> Should we really be suggesting that users add C++11 features like override when -Wcxx98-compat is on? That seems undesirable.
> 
> I think this is yet another reason why we shouldn't have coding convention enforcement in warnings perhaps?

Would ‘final’ not be considered an enforcement? We already have this warning:

 virtual void g() final; // expected-warning {{'final' keyword is a C++11 extension}} \

- Fariborz


> 
> It's particularly frustrating since we actually have clang-tidy and coding convention checking now….



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140930/650de59d/attachment.html>