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

[Rui Ueyama]

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Does that mean we have a pure virtual function with implementation in
Clang/LLVM? If so, I feel it's a little bit confusing. If not, we should
remove such redundant pure virtual function declarations from derived
classes, no?

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/20140306/8b49e987/attachment.html>