[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 "override" keyword

[mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

Marek Polacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek  ---
-Wsuggest-override is already present, closing.

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 "override" keyword

[nachms+gcc at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

Nach  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nachms+gcc at gmail dot com

--- Comment #6 from Nach  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0)
> > 
> > It should be in -Weffc++.
> 
> Not unless a new C++11 edition of Effective C++ recommends using override on
> all overriding functions, and not unless we update -Weffc++ to correspond to
> something other than the first edition.
> 

Modern Effective C++ Item 12 is that every virtual derived function should make
use of the override keyword.

Therefore, -Weffc++ should now include this new warning.

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 override keyword

[ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

--- Comment #5 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
It seems to me that
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revisionrevision=219213
implements the desired functionality. Can we close this bug?

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 override keyword

[ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot 
com

--- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---
We now have -Wsuggest-final-methods, so having something like
-Wsuggest-override wouldn't be far-fetched.

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 override keyword

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||manu at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0)
 I would like a new (optional) warning that would point out every C++ virtual
 override that is done without the C++11 keyword that indicates an override.
 By necessity, this warning would only be permitted in C++11 mode.

Hi Thiago,

I am so grateful for KDE that I would like to help here if possible. But I
would like to ask the C++ maintainer whether this is something that would be
accepted in mainline G++ and whether G++ has the capabilities to detect this
easily. Jason, what do you think?

Perhaps the same issues that made [[base_check]] to be dropped would affect the
implementation of this warning? I don't know the specifics.

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 override keyword

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0)
 
 It should be in -Weffc++.

Not unless a new C++11 edition of Effective C++ recommends using override on
all overriding functions, and not unless we update -Weffc++ to correspond to
something other than the first edition.

This seems like something that would fit better into a plugin than the core
compiler.

[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 override keyword

[manu at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
 (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0)
  
  It should be in -Weffc++.
 
 Not unless a new C++11 edition of Effective C++ recommends using override on
 all overriding functions, and not unless we update -Weffc++ to correspond to
 something other than the first edition.
 
 This seems like something that would fit better into a plugin than the core
 compiler.

We could add a new option -Wbase-check, no? 

Or we could also write a plugin and distribute it with GCC. I think it is
something that could be generally used and an useful example of how to write
plugins (and a testcase testing the plugin infrastructure).