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

[David Blaikie]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:36 AM, David Blaikie <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.


> 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).


>
> - Fariborz
>
>
> - David
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jahanian <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
>> 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/20150306/77cae8f2/attachment.html>