On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:17:55 CET Stephen Kelly wrote: > On 01/03/2017 10:36 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > El divendres, 30 de desembre de 2016, a les 15:32:24 CET, Martin Gräßlin > > va > > > > escriure: > >> Am 2016-12-30 15:25, schrieb David Faure: > >>> I fully agree that "having 'override' is actually super useful for > >>> preventing > >>> programmer faults", but that also works if it's spelled out > >>> Q_DECL_OVERRIDE > >>> and only ineffective for people *using* frameworks on an older system > >>> with gcc > >>> 4.6. It's still effective for all of us who are working on frameworks, > >>> which > >>> is where the benefit of "override" is. > >> > >> What's the plan to enforce that? How is build.kde.org checking that we > >> don't use override instead of Q_DECL_OVERRIDE? > > > > I guess you can stop worrying. Stephen Kelly just reverted that change > > that > > had been approved in a review request without any discussion. > > Sorry. > > We need to have a way to enable that warning flag which is accompanied > by a way to resolve the huge amount warnings it generates. We can't just > add that much noise to all the builds indefinitely. > > clang-tidy seems to have a modernize-use-override feature. Can we run > that on at least all frameworks before enabling this flag?
I can do that. Likely won't happen today though. Cheers, Kevin > Thanks, > > Steve. -- Kevin Funk | kf...@kde.org | http://kfunk.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.