> On Mar 6, 2015, at 9:36 AM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would it be plausible to check this on templates directly, rather than on > their instantiations? This would be less work in the case of multiple > instantiations, avoid redundant diagnostics, fail on templates without > instantiations rather than creating a lurking failure, and we might even get > all the "dependent" tests for free - because we wouldn't be able to look > through the dependent types at all.
It could be plausible. But, in similar cases, checking is done on the instantiated templates and not on the templates directly. This adds another check in the same code block. Providing a new iteration on templates for this one check is prohibitively expensive (and we normally don’t do much checking on templates). Do you see anything inherently wrong to adding this check where it is? - Fariborz > > - David > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:39 AM, jahanian <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > This patch restricts issuing -Winconsistent-missing-override when dealing with > class template with dependent bases and dependent methods. > Fixed pr22582 rdar://19917107 <>. > Please review. > > - Fariborz > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
