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

[Craig Topper]

virtual bar *foo() = 0;

where foo() also exists as pure in the base class. Clang-modernize has a
FIXME that says it can't find the "=0" to do the insert of override.


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> It also doesn't do pure methods either.
>
>
> I think I don't quite understand what that means. Can you give me an
> example?
>
>
>> On Thursday, March 6, 2014, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ~Craig
>>
>
>


-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140306/b8ed1fad/attachment.html>