On 22/04/20 15:33 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
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.
Ah good point.
