On 10/27/2017 12:03 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 10:55 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Prereq for eventually embedding range analysis into the sprintf
>> warning
>> pass. The only thing that changed since the original from a few days
>> ago was the addition of FINAL OVERRIDE to the before_dom_children
>> override function.
>>
>> Re-bootstrapped and regression tested on x86.
>>
>> Installing on the trunk. Final patch attached for archival purposes.
>>
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Sorry to be re-treading the FINAL/OVERRIDE stuff, but...
>
> [...snip...]
>
>> +class sprintf_dom_walker : public dom_walker
>> +{
>> + public:
>> + sprintf_dom_walker () : dom_walker (CDI_DOMINATORS) {}
>> + ~sprintf_dom_walker () {}
>> +
>> + virtual edge before_dom_children (basic_block) FINAL OVERRIDE;
>
> Is it just me, or is it a code smell to have both "virtual" and
> "final"/"override" on a decl?
>
> In particular, AIUI:
> "virtual" says: "some subclass might override this method"
> "final" says: "no subclass will override this method"
>
> so having both seems contradictory.
>
> If sprintf_dom_walker is providing a implementation of a vfunc of
> dom_walker, then presumably this should just lose the "virtual" on the
> subclass, it's presumably already got the "virtual" it needs in the
> base class.
I thought I'd removed all the virtuals when I added the FINAL OVERRIDEs.
Sigh.
I'll take care of it.
jeff
