forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1756630dfa
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/1000#issuecomment-476951555
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| DarwinLog | ||
| CMakeLists.txt | ||