On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:31 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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. > True, but we don't warn in that case, and I think that's reasonable, as the user is being explicit about their intent. Adding a defaulted declaration seems like a good way to silence the warning without changing ABI. Jason
