[Bug c++/57854] Would like to have a warning for virtual overrides without C++11 "override" keyword

["manu at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57854

--- Comment #3 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Thiago Macieira from comment #0)
> > 
> > It should be in -Weffc++.
> 
> Not unless a new C++11 edition of Effective C++ recommends using override on
> all overriding functions, and not unless we update -Weffc++ to correspond to
> something other than the first edition.
> 
> This seems like something that would fit better into a plugin than the core
> compiler.

We could add a new option -Wbase-check, no? 

Or we could also write a plugin and distribute it with GCC. I think it is
something that could be generally used and an useful example of how to write
plugins (and a testcase testing the plugin infrastructure).
>From gcc-bugs-return-426008-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Jul 09 09:59:53 2013
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-426008-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21281 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2013 09:59:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21215 invoked by uid 48); 9 Jul 2013 09:59:50 -0000
From: "mikpe at it dot uu.se" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/57862] invalid read struct uint32_t member (ARMV5)
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:59:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.7.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical
X-Bugzilla-Who: mikpe at it dot uu.se
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-57862-4-l2fsg1M6yU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57862-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57862-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2
Content-length: 496

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idW862

--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson <mikpe at it dot uu.se> ---
This has all the indications of a mis-aligned memory access.  Since you're on
Linux, please make sure that the 'User faults' field in /proc/cpu/alignment
shows a value of 2 (fixup) or 3 (fixup+warn).  You can 'echo 3 >
/proc/cpu/alignment'
in your startup scripts to ensure this setting, or you can hack it into the
kernel source's arch/arm/mm/alignment.c (which is what I do).