LGTM > On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:10 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:03 PM, jahanian <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’d feel a lot better if some part of the warning could be on by >>>>> default. For example, if you’ve uttered “override” at least once in a >>>>> class, it makes sense to warn-by-default about any other overrides in >>>>> that class that weren’t marked as “override”, because you’re being >>>>> locally inconsistent. Or maybe you can expand that heuristic out to a >>>>> file-level granularity (which matches better for the null point constant >>>>> warning) and still be on-by-default. >>>> >>>> This seems like a great idea to me! >>>> For the 'override' I much prefer if it is class specific to make it less >>>> of a burden as an “always on” warning. We could have the checking done at >>>> the end of the class definition. >>>> >>> >>> Here is the patch. Warning is on by default. Number of new warnings on >>> clang tests is greatly reduced but there are still some. >> >> +def warn_function_marked_not_override_overriding : Warning < >> + "%0 is not marked 'override' but overrides a member functions">, >> + InGroup<CXX11WarnOverrideMethod>; >> >> “a member functions” shouldn’t be plural. Also, perhaps we should turn this >> around: >> >> “%0 overrides a member function but is not marked ‘override’” >> >> because that puts the context of the problem before the problem. >> >> + if (HasMethodWithOverrideControl) { >> + // At list one method has the 'override' control declared. >> + // Diagnose all other overridden methods which do not have 'override' >> specified on them. >> + for (auto *M : Record->methods()) >> >> “At list” -> “At least”. >> >> Also, this means we’ll be taking two passes over the methods if any >> “override” is present, even though we won’t often warn here. How about >> extending this: >> >> + if (M->hasAttr<OverrideAttr>()) >> + HasMethodWithOverrideControl = true; >> >> with >> >> else if (M->begin_overridden_methods() != M->end_overridden_methods()) >> HasOverridingMethodWithoutOverrideControl = true; >> >> and we only do this second pass when we know we’re going to warn, e.g., if >> HasMethodWithOverrideControl && HasOverridingMethodWithoutOverrideControl? > > Thanks for quick review. Here is the updated patch. > > <override-patch.txt> > > - Fariborz >> >> - Doug
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
