[PATCH] Restrict -Winconsistent-missing-override warnings on class templates with dependent bases

[jahanian]

> On Mar 6, 2015, at 2:47 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com <mailto:fjahanian at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:36 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Would it be plausible to check this on templates directly, rather than on their instantiations? This would be less work in the case of multiple instantiations, avoid redundant diagnostics, fail on templates without instantiations rather than creating a lurking failure, and we might even get all the "dependent" tests for free - because we wouldn't be able to look through the dependent types at all.
> 
> It could be plausible. But, in similar cases, checking is done on the instantiated templates and not on the templates directly. This adds another check in the
> same code block. Providing a new iteration on templates for this one check is prohibitively expensive (and we normally don’t do much checking on templates).
> 
> It is? I'd be curious to see the numbers, as it sounds like you have some.

No I don’t have any. But iterating over templates looking for methods would add to cost. Are we iterating over templates for other diagnostics?
If so, I can add this there.

>  
> Do you see anything inherently wrong to adding this check where it is?
> 
> Just the issues I mentioned - duplicate diagnostics in the case of multiple instantiations (& no diagnostics in the case of no instantiations).

AFAIK, it is not common practice to add diagnostics on template declarations as this will break SDKs. Furthermore, if template is not used
in practice, there is no point issuing this diagnostic. Can you point to similar situations where templates are iterated over checking for method
inconsistencies or other types of diagnostics?

- Fariborz

>  
> 
> - Fariborz
> 
>> 
>> - David
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com <mailto:fjahanian at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> This patch restricts issuing -Winconsistent-missing-override when dealing with
>> class template with dependent bases and dependent methods.
>> Fixed pr22582 rdar://19917107 <>.
>> Please review.
>> 
>> - Fariborz
>> 
>> 	
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150306/5200383d/attachment.html>