* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
@ 2004-10-10 14:20 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 16:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P2 |P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
2004-10-10 14:20 ` [Bug c++/17920] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 16:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 16:14 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-10-10 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-10 16:06 -------
I don't think we want an extension like this unless it is drafted to the C++ committee.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
2004-10-10 14:20 ` [Bug c++/17920] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-10-10 16:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-10-10 16:14 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
2004-10-10 22:41 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu @ 2004-10-10 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-10-10 16:14 -------
Subject: Re: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
"pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| I don't think we want an extension like this unless it is drafted to
| the C++ committee.
For the record, that usually surfaces as "override" keyword in
recurrent discussions. The debates date back to the earlier days when
virtual was introduced in C++. Nothing has ever happened.
I don't think I'm in favor of this PR.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 16:14 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
@ 2004-10-10 22:41 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-10 22:46 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-10 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-10 22:41 -------
As far as I can tell, this is just a hint for the compiler to generate better
diagnostic. Pretty much like attribute(sentinel) for instance: we just give the
compiler more information, we are not modifying the semantic of a program.
I'm actually in favor of this PR so I will confirm this. This is not an
extension as in we are modifying the language semantic, adding strange features
or whatnot.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-10-10 22:41:32
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 22:41 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-10 22:46 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
2004-10-11 9:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-11 12:54 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu @ 2004-10-10 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-10-10 22:46 -------
Subject: Re: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
"giovannibajo at libero dot it" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| As far as I can tell, this is just a hint for the compiler to
| generate better diagnostic. Pretty much like attribute(sentinel) for
| instance: we just give the compiler more information, we are not
| modifying the semantic of a program.
|
| I'm actually in favor of this PR so I will confirm this. This is not an
| extension as in we are modifying the language semantic, adding
| strange features or whatnot.
I disagree with the notion that it is just a diagnostic related issue;
because it comes with a semantics part. Let's not not disguise a
language extension under the name of diagnostic improvement.
It helps nobody.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-10 22:46 ` gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
@ 2004-10-11 9:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-10-11 12:54 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-10-11 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-11 09:28 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> I disagree with the notion that it is just a diagnostic related issue;
> because it comes with a semantics part. Let's not not disguise a
> language extension under the name of diagnostic improvement.
> It helps nobody.
I am not trying to, really.
In my view, the compilation unit will produce exactly the same object file,
whether attribute(reimpl) is implemented or not, used or not. The only
difference is that with attribute(reimpl) we might emit a warning iff the
method does not override another virtual method in the base class.
Why do you think there is a semantics part? Maybe I do not get it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/17920] add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
2004-10-10 8:56 [Bug c++/17920] New: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions mutz at kde dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-10-11 9:28 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-10-11 12:54 ` bangerth at dealii dot org
6 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: bangerth at dealii dot org @ 2004-10-11 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-11 12:54 -------
I concur with Giovanni: this is a case very much like the format
checking for printf and attribute sentinel. If you simply remove
the attribute statement, then the generated code is exactly the
same in all cases, the attribute is there only to enable the compiler
to emit more warnings.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread