[LLVMdev] [RFC] C++11: 'virtual' and 'override'

[Craig Topper]

The cases I saw were changing the return types. For example:

  TerminatorInst *clone_impl() const override = 0;

this overrides

virtual Instruction *clone_impl() const = 0;


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> virtual bar *foo() = 0;
>>
>> where foo() also exists as pure in the base class. Clang-modernize has a
>> FIXME that says it can't find the "=0" to do the insert of override.
>>
>
> Does that mean we have a pure virtual function with implementation in
> Clang/LLVM? If so, I feel it's a little bit confusing. If not, we should
> remove such redundant pure virtual function declarations from derived
> classes, no?
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> It also doesn't do pure methods either.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I don't quite understand what that means. Can you give me an
>>> example?
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After running the tool aginst LLD, I realized that clang-modernize do
>>>>> not add "override" to virtual destructors. I think it's not intended but
>>>>> just that that case is not covered by the tool.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't realize that. I'll see if i can figure out how to make it
>>>>> delete the virtual keyword.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> clang-modernize has a -format option that will run clang-format on the
>>>>> code it changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> clang-modernize can add the 'override', but it can't currently delete
>>>>> 'virtual'. It will also potentially overflow 80 columns. And if it removed
>>>>> virtual it would fail to align a second line of arguments correctly. So you
>>>>> need modernize and clang-format I guess. Though I'm not sure we want to
>>>>> widespread apply clang-format.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked
>>>>> 'override' and a function that overrides but is not marked 'override'.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That could be useful - because it means that the author of the class
>>>>> is at
>>>>> least thinking about override - but having a "coding style" warning of
>>>>> "I
>>>>> always intend to use override" would still be useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doug (not sure about other Clang owners) is pretty hesitant about
>>>>> implementing coding style warnings - anything with such a high false
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ~Craig
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~Craig
>>
>
>


-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140306/8a0bd6dd/attachment.html>