================
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+// RUN: %clang_cc1 -fsyntax-only -verify -Wunnecessary-virtual-specifier %s
+
+struct Foo final {
+ Foo() = default;
+ virtual ~Foo() = default; // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ virtual Foo& operator=(Foo& other) = default; // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ virtual Foo& operator=(Foo&& other) = default; // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ void f();
+ virtual void f(int); // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ int g(int x) { return x; };
+ virtual int g(bool); // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ static int s();
+};
+
+struct BarBase {
+ virtual ~BarBase() = delete;
+ virtual void virt() {}
+ virtual int virt(int);
+ int nonvirt();
+};
+
+struct Bar final : BarBase {
+ ~Bar() override = delete;
+ void virt() override {};
+ // `virtual ... override;` is a common pattern, so don't warn
+ virtual int virt(int) override;
+ virtual int virt(bool); // expected-warning {{virtual
method}}
+ int nonvirt();
+};
----------------
zmodem wrote:
I'd also like to see the case of a function which does override something, but
isn't marked with override. For example:
```
struct Base {
virtual void foo();
};
struct Derived final : public Base {
virtual void foo();
};
```
Should we warn here?
The `virtual` is unnecessary because it's already "inherited". But at least
pre-c++11 writing out the `virtual` was common to signal to the reader that it
was in fact a virtual function. On the other hand, pre-c++11 code wouldn't be
able to use `final`.
We will already warn (`-Wsuggest-override`), maybe that's enough for that one?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/131188
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
