From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 65971 invoked by alias); 13 May 2016 20:30:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 65932 invoked by uid 89); 13 May 2016 20:30:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.99.1 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=FINAL, Hx-languages-length:633 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Message-ID: <1463171396.11310.93.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] jit: use FINAL and OVERRIDE throughout From: David Malcolm To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jit@gcc.gnu.org Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1462552846-17096-2-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> References: <1462552846-17096-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> <1462552846-17096-2-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 13 May 2016 20:29:58 +0000 (UTC) X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 12:40 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > Mark most virtual functions in gcc/jit as being FINAL OVERRIDE. > gcc::jit::recording::lvalue::access_as_rvalue is the sole OVERRIDE > that isn't a FINAL. > > Successfully bootstrapped®rtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > I can self-approve this, but as asked in patch 1, > does "final" imply "override"? Is "final override" a tautology? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29412412/does-final-imply-override s ays that "final override" is *not* tautologous. I've committed this jit patch to trunk as r236223. Dave