sammccall added a comment. In D82617#2117086 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617#2117086>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> FWIW, I think the example you gave is **correct** for GCC to warn on. Everything the warning says is correct, but in this pattern the polymorphic usage is the whole point of the hierarchy, the subclasses are never exposed. There's no actual danger of confusion. > the derived class violates the Liskov substitution principle: it doesn't have > an `obj.foo(42)` method. LSP doesn't say the classes are substitutable (indeed you couldn't template over the subclasses, for example). It says that *objects* of the classes should be. And they are. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
