On 6/28/19 8:55 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 5/28/19 10:31 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >> On 5/28/19 4:24 AM, Martin Liška wrote: >>> On 5/28/19 11:31 AM, David CARLIER wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Here a tiny patch to fix few build warnings. >>>> >>>> Kind regards. >>>> >>> >>> Hi. >>> >>> Well, I see a lot of these struct/class discrepancies when building >>> GCC with LLVM. >>> Question is whether it worth changing? >> >> I think it's nice for these to be spelled consistently and no benefit >> to mixing and matching them. If it cleans up common warnings I see >> no reason not to make the change. >> >> FWIW, it's also a common convention to use struct for PODs and class >> for types with user-defined ctors, and even if GCC doesn't subscribe >> to it, make a change in support of it is an improvement independent >> of the Visual C++ warning. (As might be adding such a warning to >> GCC to help enforce the convention on projects that do follow it.) > > Jeff reminded me in a code review the other day that GCC does > have a guideline for defining POD structs with the keyword > "struct" and classes with ctors/dtors using "class": > > https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Struct_Use > > I quickly prototyped a warning to see how closely GCC follows > this convention. The result shows that out of just under 800 > structs and classes defined in GCC sources some 200 use > the keyword 'struct' despite having a ctor or dtor, or about > 25%. So as is the case with most other conventions, without > a tool to help remind us they exist they are unlikely to be > followed with enough consistency to be worth putting in place > to begin with. This kind of response just makes you look combative. We have a convention and we should follow it. Please do so for your code.
If we can cleanly implement this kind of diagnostic, then I would certainly suggest we do so, fix our codebase and turn it on by default for GCC builds, regardless of its status in -Wall. jeff
