[LLVMdev] [RFC] C++11: 'virtual' and 'override' (original) (raw)

Rui Ueyama ruiu at google.com
Wed Mar 5 13:10:21 PST 2014

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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140305/6d5835ea/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list