[llvm] r218050 - Fixing a bunch of -Woverloaded-virtual warnings due to hiding getSubtargetImpl from the base class. NFC.

[Aaron Ballman]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:55 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Author: aaronballman
>> Date: Thu Sep 18 08:27:14 2014
>> New Revision: 218050
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=218050&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fixing a bunch of -Woverloaded-virtual warnings due to hiding
>> getSubtargetImpl from the base class. NFC.
>
>
> Which compiler is producing that warning here?

I believe this is GCC warning on it. It's our attribute documentation
building bot that is kicking off these warnings, so I don't have a
link to a bot to show you. If you would like, I can forward the bot
report email.

> I /think/ this is one of those cases where we improved the Clang warning and
> should just disable the GCC one.
>
> (there's some debate about what the /point/ of this warning is, which is
> fair - but I tuned Clang's to detect the cases where someone tried to
> override and accidentally overloaded - which isn't the case here. The base
> class has a couple of virtual methods, the derived class correctly overrode
> one of them. I don't think this is a major source of bugs/worth fixing,
> possibly)
>
> (the gap of course is that you can still end up with this problem:
> struct base { virtual void func(int); virtual void func(bool); };
> struct derived : base { void func(bool) override; void stuff() { func(42);
> /* oops, this calls func(bool) because shadowing */ } };
> hence the debate about what the purpose of the warning is)

I don't have any strong opinions on whether the warning provides value
or not, but I do have strong opinions on ensuring a warning-free build
for this bot, which is the only reason I cleaned these up.

~Aaron