psionic12 marked an inline comment as done.
psionic12 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/Frontend/plugin-call-super.cpp:18-19
+struct Derive2 : public Base1, public Base2 { void Test() override {
Base1::Test(); Base2::Test();}};
+// BADCALLSUPER: warning: virtual function 'Base2::Test' is marked as
'call_super' but this overriding method does not call the base version
+// BADCALLSUPER: note: function marked 'call_super' here
+#endif
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> These warnings and notes (and the warning a few lines up) are ones I would
> have expected to catch using `// expected-warning {{virtual function
> 'Base2::Test' is marked as 'call_super' but this overriding method does not
> call the base version}}` style checks instead of needing to use FileCheck.
>
> Do plugin-based diagnostics not get caught by `-verify`? I expect this test
> file to fail as currently written because of the `expected-no-diagnostics`,
> but I've not done a whole lot of testing of plugins before.
`-verify` works well with plugins, I just tested, thanks for pointing out this
elegant test way for syntax only features.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91047/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91047
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
