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

[Rui Ueyama]

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
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the “clang-modernize” tool can add “override” in the
>>>> appropriate places.
>>>>
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7293715/is-there-a-tool-to-add-the-override-identifier-to-existing-c-code
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can it also delete "virtual" if it has "override"?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> — Marshall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~Craig
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~Craig
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140306/ab3598da/attachment.html>