On 22/04/20 15:19 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 4/22/20 2:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
These warnings have nothing to do with virtual functions, so "override"
is inappropriate. The warnings are just talking about defining special
members, so let's say that.
PR translation/94698
* class.c (check_field_decls): Change "override" to "define" in
-Weffc++ diagnostics.
Tested powerpc64le-linux, OK for master?
It is overriding the default(ed) definition, but I agree that
"override" now suggests virtual functions.
"define" is also wrong, though; it should be "declare". OK with that
change.
I did consider that, but decided that it has to be user-provided (i.e.
defined by the user) to avoid the problem, because a user-declared but
defaulted function would still not clean up pointer members.
But either seems better than "override". I'll change it to declared (I
already committed the original version).
