clang-modernize has a -format option that will run clang-format on the code it changes. Ben On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:> clang-modernize can add the 'override', but it can't currently delete 'virtual'. It will also potentially overflow 80 columns. And if it removed virtual it would fail to align a second line of arguments correctly. So you need modernize and clang-format I guess. Though I'm not sure we want to widespread apply clang-format. > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked >>>> 'override' and a function that overrides but is not marked 'override'. >>>> >>>> >>>> That could be useful - because it means that the author of the class is at >>>> least thinking about override - but having a "coding style" warning of "I >>>> always intend to use override" would still be useful. >>> >>> Doug (not sure about other Clang owners) is pretty hesitant about >>> implementing coding style warnings - anything with such a high false >>> positive rate as to be off by default is assumed to be a non-starter >>> in Clang (though perhaps things have changed in the years since I last >>> tested the waters here). >>> >>> And now that we have something like clang-tidy, it's perhaps less of >>> an issue... we'll see. >> >> Making it part of clang-tidy would make a lot of sense then! Is there any plans to get clang-tidy running against the llvm/clang codebases regularly, or is it already happening? > > I believe that the “clang-modernize” tool can add “override” in the appropriate places. > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7293715/is-there-a-tool-to-add-the-override-identifier-to-existing-c-code > > Can it also delete "virtual" if it has "override"? > > > — Marshall > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > > > -- > ~Craig > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140305/6371db4b/attachment.html>
Didn't realize that. I'll see if i can figure out how to make it delete the virtual keyword. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote:> clang-modernize has a -format option that will run clang-format on the > code it changes. > > Ben > > > > On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > > clang-modernize can add the 'override', but it can't currently delete > 'virtual'. It will also potentially overflow 80 columns. And if it removed > virtual it would fail to align a second line of arguments correctly. So you > need modernize and clang-format I guess. Though I'm not sure we want to > widespread apply clang-format. > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked >>> 'override' and a function that overrides but is not marked 'override'. >>> >>> >>> That could be useful - because it means that the author of the class is >>> at >>> least thinking about override - but having a "coding style" warning of "I >>> always intend to use override" would still be useful. >>> >>> >>> Doug (not sure about other Clang owners) is pretty hesitant about >>> implementing coding style warnings - anything with such a high false >>> positive rate as to be off by default is assumed to be a non-starter >>> in Clang (though perhaps things have changed in the years since I last >>> tested the waters here). >>> >>> And now that we have something like clang-tidy, it's perhaps less of >>> an issue... we'll see. >>> >>> >>> Making it part of clang-tidy would make a lot of sense then! Is there >>> any plans to get clang-tidy running against the llvm/clang codebases >>> regularly, or is it already happening? >>> >>> >>> I believe that the "clang-modernize" tool can add "override" in the >>> appropriate places. >>> >>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7293715/is-there-a-tool-to-add-the-override-identifier-to-existing-c-code >>> >> >> Can it also delete "virtual" if it has "override"? >> >> >>> >>> -- Marshall >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> > > > -- > ~Craig > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > >-- ~Craig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140305/dca7aff5/attachment.html>
After running the tool aginst LLD, I realized that clang-modernize do not add "override" to virtual destructors. I think it's not intended but just that that case is not covered by the tool. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote:> Didn't realize that. I'll see if i can figure out how to make it delete > the virtual keyword. > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ben Langmuir <blangmuir at apple.com> wrote: > >> clang-modernize has a -format option that will run clang-format on the >> code it changes. >> >> Ben >> >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 2:26 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> clang-modernize can add the 'override', but it can't currently delete >> 'virtual'. It will also potentially overflow 80 columns. And if it removed >> virtual it would fail to align a second line of arguments correctly. So you >> need modernize and clang-format I guess. Though I'm not sure we want to >> widespread apply clang-format. >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It might be reasonable to warn if a class has both a function marked >>>> 'override' and a function that overrides but is not marked 'override'. >>>> >>>> >>>> That could be useful - because it means that the author of the class is >>>> at >>>> least thinking about override - but having a "coding style" warning of >>>> "I >>>> always intend to use override" would still be useful. >>>> >>>> >>>> Doug (not sure about other Clang owners) is pretty hesitant about >>>> implementing coding style warnings - anything with such a high false >>>> positive rate as to be off by default is assumed to be a non-starter >>>> in Clang (though perhaps things have changed in the years since I last >>>> tested the waters here). >>>> >>>> And now that we have something like clang-tidy, it's perhaps less of >>>> an issue... we'll see. >>>> >>>> >>>> Making it part of clang-tidy would make a lot of sense then! Is there >>>> any plans to get clang-tidy running against the llvm/clang codebases >>>> regularly, or is it already happening? >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that the “clang-modernize” tool can add “override” in the >>>> appropriate places. >>>> >>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7293715/is-there-a-tool-to-add-the-override-identifier-to-existing-c-code >>>> >>> >>> Can it also delete "virtual" if it has "override"? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> — Marshall >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ~Craig >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> >> >> > > > -- > ~Craig >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140306/ab3598da/attachment.html>