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 |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
Breakpoint | ||
Core | ||
Disassembler | ||
Editline | ||
Expression | ||
Host | ||
Interpreter | ||
Language | ||
ObjectFile | ||
Platform | ||
Process | ||
ScriptInterpreter | ||
Signals | ||
Symbol | ||
SymbolFile | ||
Target | ||
TestingSupport | ||
UnwindAssembly | ||
Utility | ||
debugserver | ||
tools | ||
CMakeLists.txt | ||
gtest_common.h |