[LLVMdev] -Woverloaded-virtual

[Chris Lattner]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote:

> I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override
> FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name --
> so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method.

Ya know, I think that everyone has done that at least once (myself
included)... on THAT VERY METHOD.  grr :)

I definitely think that it would be a good idea to add this -W flag :)

> After spending some time on this, I've decided to add
> -Woverloaded-virtual option to compiler to catch such cases. However, it
> also gives some warnings on LLVM code:
>
> ../../../include/llvm/Pass.h:264: warning: `virtual bool
>    llvm::FunctionPass::run(llvm::Module&)' was hidden
> ../../../include/llvm/Pass.h:326: warning:   by `bool
>    llvm::BasicBlockPass::run(llvm::BasicBlock&)'
> ../../../include/llvm/Pass.h:275: warning: `virtual void
>    llvm::FunctionPass::addToPassManager(llvm::PassManagerT<llvm::Module>*,
>    llvm::AnalysisUsage&)' was hidden
> ../../../include/llvm/Pass.h:332: warning:   by `virtual void
>    llvm::BasicBlockPass::addToPassManager(llvm::PassManagerT<llvm::BasicBlock>*,
>    llvm::AnalysisUsage&)'
>
> The problem is that "run" method is virtual in Path (with Module& as
> argument), but another version (non-virtual), which takes BasicBlock& is
> defined in BasicBlockPath.

Is that the only problem case?

> Do you think this warning is worth fixing? One possible approach is to
> rename virtual run(Module&) to runOnModule, but that would require
> updating all derived classes :-(

That is not a big deal necessarily.  Is this the only case that currently
causes spurious warnings?

-Chris

-- 
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/
http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/