> On Dec. 30, 2016, 6:39 a.m., Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > Is that enabled by default now? I hope not! This is a completely useless > > warning for all frameworks (as we are not allowed to use override) and even > > more for a legacy code bases. I don't want to have to adjust the cmake in > > all projects I maintain to silence this warning again. And even less I want > > to spent days adding overrides to legacy code base. > > Laurent Montel wrote: > We can use Q_DECL_OVERRIDE which is replaced by override when your gcc > support it. So There is not a problem to use this flags no ? > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I commented on that aspect in the past. We cannot have both: enforce > C++11 and at the same time keep compatibility to no C++11. > > > > We need to find a real line and not bullshit around with macros. > > > > Either we say C++11 then enable all of it, or say no. But then no > earnings please. > > > > I'm seriously annoyed by the stupid dance we are doing.
The Clang warning flag is not documented very well but everything I've been able to find seems to indicate it became a default warning when it was added in LLVM 3.6. However some simple testcases I've run against a more recent LLVM (3.9) fail to trip the warning even after enabling optimization, ensuring C++11 is enabled, using various combinations of override combinations, etc. So it seems that at least in recent LLVM this may not be a source of much noise even though it's enabled by default. But there are a lot of complaints online about this warning for LLVM 3.6 so it's going to be with us one way or another anyways. I'm sympathetic to the point about either supporting C++11 or not instead of having to guess which of its subfeatures we can use, especially since our "supported compilers page" (https://community.kde.org/Frameworks/Policies#Frameworks_compiler_requirements_and_C.2B.2B11) that tells us what we can use appears to be resistant to being located from a search engine. But that's the kind of thing that would need discussion on the mailing list and it seems to me like we've repainted that shed several times over already. - Michael ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129724/#review101664 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Dec. 29, 2016, 11:48 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129724/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Dec. 29, 2016, 11:48 p.m.) > > > Review request for Build System and KDE Frameworks. > > > Repository: extra-cmake-modules > > > Description > ------- > > Gives a nice warning about something that should be marked as override but > isn't > > > Diffs > ----- > > kde-modules/KDEFrameworkCompilerSettings.cmake 038ddc3 > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129724/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Albert Astals Cid > >