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

[Chandler Carruth]

On Wed, 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
> positive rate as to be off by default is assumed to be a non-starter
> in Clang (though perhaps things have changed in the years since I last
> tested the waters here).
>
> And now that we have something like clang-tidy, it's perhaps less of
> an issue... we'll see.
>
>
> Making it part of clang-tidy would make a lot of sense then!  Is there any
> plans to get clang-tidy running against the llvm/clang codebases regularly,
> or is it already happening?
>

Alex and others here are actively working on it. I think Craig Topper has
even used a prototype tidy check for this exact issue to do most of the
cleanup. =]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140305/8e5a0b9b/attachment.html>