aaron.ballman added a comment. This strikes me as likely being a very chatty diagnostic. For instance, it will trigger on harmless code that uses empty base class optimization (in addition to other concerns pointed out by @lebedev.ri). It seems like the real concern here is unintentional information disclosure, but I don't see a good heuristic for determining that something is "unintentional" or not. I'd be curious to know how frequently this triggers on some large C++ code bases.
================ Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/misc-class-inherit-from-struct.rst:6-10 +Finds instances of classes inheriting from structs. Structs are meant for +storing data and are often used to maintain C compatibility. Having a class +inherit from them can lead to confusion with what type of object is being +dealt with. Additionally, the default public nature of struct members can +lead to unintentional exposure of members. ---------------- I don't agree with the predicate here -- structs aren't just used for C compatibility (look at <type_traits> as an example). They're also useful when all members need to be public, which is exactly the situation you claim may be unintentional. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D52552 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
