zinovy.nis added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/clang-tidy/bugprone-parent-virtual-call.cpp:113
+ int virt_1() override { return A::virt_1(); }
+ // CHECK-MESSAGES: :[[@LINE-1]]:34: warning: qualified function name
A::virt_1 refers to a function not from a direct base class; did you mean 'BI'?
[bugprone-parent-virtual-call]
+ // CHECK-FIXES: int virt_1() override { return BI::virt_1(); }
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> zinovy.nis wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > This seems like a false positive to me. Yes, the virtual function is
> > > technically exposed in `BI`, but why is the programmer obligated to call
> > > that one rather than the one from `A`, which is written in the source?
> > IMHO it's a matter of safety. Today virt_1() is not overridden in BI, but
> > tomorrow someone will implement BI::virt_1() and it will silently lead to
> > bugs or whatever.
> If tomorrow someone implements `BI::virt_1()`, then the check will start
> diagnosing at that point.
Correct, but anyway I don't think it's a problem.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44295
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
