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

[Craig Topper]

Looking a little closer StreamableMemoryObject.h does have some seemingly
redundant overrides.

And this override of a non-pure virtual with a pure virtual

  virtual int readBytes(uint64_t address,
                        uint64_t size,
                        uint8_t *buf) const override = 0;


On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:

> The cases I saw were changing the return types. For example:
>
>   TerminatorInst *clone_impl() const override = 0;
>
> this overrides
>
> virtual Instruction *clone_impl() const = 0;
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~Craig
>



-- 
~Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140306/079241a9/attachment.html>