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

Craig Topper craig.topper at gmail.com
Thu Mar 6 15:47:58 PST 2014

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>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list