> On Oct 24, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay. LGTM subject to a few comments:
Thanks for the review. In r220703.
- Fariborz
>
> + if (HasMethodWithOverrideControl
> + && HasOverridingMethodWithoutOverrideControl) {
>
> The && should be on the previous line.
>
> + if (!M->hasAttr<OverrideAttr>())
> + DiagnoseAbsenceOfOverrideControl(M);
>
> It seems strange to me to put the check for OverrideAttr here but put the
> check for FinalAttr and overridden functions and so on in
> DiagnoseAbsenceOfOverrideControl. Move this check into the function with the
> others?
>
> // expected-error@+1 {{declaration of 'SealedFunction' overrides a
> 'sealed' function}}
> - virtual void SealedFunction();
> + virtual void SealedFunction(); // expected-warning {{'SealedFunction'
> overrides a member function but is not marked 'override'}}
>
> It would be nice to suppress the warning if we're also issuing an error for
> overriding a 'final' function. Please at least add a FIXME to the test for
> that so that someone fixing this later doesn't think this is deliberate.
>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
