+def CXX11WarnOverrideMethod : DiagGroup<"warn-missing-override-on-overriding-method">;
Anyone care to bikeshed the name a bit? This flag feels really verbose, especially given that it gets a -W prefix. Can we go with -Wmissing-override or -Winconsistent-missing-override to reflect the fact that it's heuristically triggered based on use of C++11 override somewhere in the class hierarchy? On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:15 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:12 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > LGTM > > Thanks. I want to add FixIts before checking it in. > > - Fariborz > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 4:10 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:03 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 2014, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Gregor <[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 > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
