[cfe-dev] Tidy vs Warnings: missing override

[JVApen via cfe-dev]

Hi all,

It looks like I did not get the responses of this thread in my mailbox.
Let me try to pick in on:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-August/058861.html and
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2018-August/058903.html

If I understood correctly, clang-tidy warns on all occurrences of missing
overrides while the compiler warning suppresses the warning if override
doesn't appear in the class.
(PS: This nuance ain't clear from reading
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/DiagnosticsReference.html#id300 or
https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/modernize-use-override.html)

>From a personal perspective, I enable -Werror and -Weverything.
With this, I can disable (and document why) warnings I don't like (as the
C++98 compatibility) or suppress the warnings locally when explicitly
violating.
>From this perspective, I agree with Matthieu that this makes sense for
every occurrence, especially in old code bases since I want to all hidden
cases to be fixed asap.
(I might care less if we manage to setup an automated system for checking
the clang-tidy warnings to ensure that override ain't forgotten in new
files.)

I also understand the reasoning of Dave for why we have clang-tidy as a
separate executable: some checks can take a long time to run or need to
keep track of a lot of state.
However, if I'm understanding this case correctly, neither of these
conditions are met as the compiler code already detects the issue and
decides to ignore it since no override is available in that file.
If we really care about keeping this distinction, would reporting this case
in a separate warning (-Winconsistent-missing-override-pedantic) be a
solution both scenarios, similar to
-Winconsistent-missing-destructor-override?

Thanks!
PS: I could not find the code on github where the warning was actually
triggered.

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 19:26, JVApen <JVApen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Today we have discovered a case where we did not have a compiler warning
> for a missing override. To verify, we explicitly enabled the warning with
> the pragma.
>
> While investigating this in the IDE, we noticed that the Visual Assist
> plugin did notice that missing override. As this uses clang-tidy to
> determine this, we were wondering if these differences we noticed are
> intentional. If so, is their any documentation on these differences?
>
> Tnx
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180818/ca02bb2c/attachment.html>