2011/5/24 Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]> > On May 21, 2011, at 5:31 AM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > > Your new diagnostic for non-virtual destructor looks great and useful, I'd >> suggest we put it in "most" diagnostic group. >> >> Thanks for your work! >> >> -Argyrios >> >> > Here is the new patch with the warning wired up in "most". > > I hope that the final attribute for classes will be implemented soon since > it'll remove some false positives for this warning. > > > It's already implemented, you can check it with > cxxRecordDecl->hasAttr<FinalAttr>(). > > -Argyrios > > Ah great! I had completely missed it...
I have reviewed the patch then, and taken the liberty of pasting the paragraph of the Standard that specifies this just above the little piece of code. I have also added the tests to `destructor.cpp`. I have ordered the test so that hasAttr<FinalAttr> is the last condition, in order to economize the calls (I suppose it's less costly than looking up the destructor). Since this means that I now specifies -std=c++0x on the command line (for final), I would understand if it should only be activated conditionally or if the test should be split. -- Matthieu
clang_non_virtual_destructor.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
