C.128, why not use override virutal base class destructor? #1000
Comments
|
Per our editor's discussion, note that the meaning of |
|
C.128: Should destructors be marked "override"? |
|
Well, I personally still disagree: the meaning of override is exactly the same for destructors as for normal members (it ensures that the function in the base class was declared virtual) it is just the destructor that - virtual or not - behaves differently than a normal function as it automatically also calls the base class destructor (but the same can be done in normal virtual member functions as well). But more importantly I think c.128 misses an explanation as to why the guidelines recommend against using override on destructors - maybe a link to #721 would be in order. |
|
I agree with @MikeGitb. It is very easy for someone to inherit from a class and to (mistakenly) assume that the base has a virtual destructor, or the reverse, someone performs some maintenance on the base class and in the process innocently removes the virtual from it's destructor, or even just (if it's a new class hierarchy) forgets to put the virtual on the base (we're just human after all). |
|
+1 for having override on destructors, this is exactly the kind of bugs we've seen in the pass and now catch by using Someone remove the Not sure I understand why it's considered good to protect ourselves against this kind of error for methods but not for the destructor. |
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines#1000 (comment)
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines#1000 (comment)
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/lldb/trunk@359868 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines#1000 (comment)
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
Summary:
According to [C128] "Virtual functions should specify exactly one
of `virtual`, `override`, or `final`", I've added override where a
virtual function is overriden but the explicit `override` keyword
was missing. Whenever both `virtual` and `override` were specified,
I removed `virtual`. As C.128 puts it:
> [...] writing more than one of these three is both redundant and
> a potential source of errors.
I anticipate a discussion about whether or not to add `override` to
destructors but I went for it because of an example in [ISOCPP1000].
Let me repeat the comment for you here:
Consider this code:
```
struct Base {
virtual ~Base(){}
};
struct SubClass : Base {
~SubClass() {
std::cout << "It works!\n";
}
};
int main() {
std::unique_ptr<Base> ptr = std::make_unique<SubClass>();
}
```
If for some odd reason somebody removes the `virtual` keyword from the
`Base` struct, the code will no longer print `It works!`. So adding
`override` to destructors actively protects us from accidentally
breaking our code at runtime.
[C128]: https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#c128-virtual-functions-should-specify-exactly-one-of-virtual-override-or-final
[ISOCPP1000]: isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines#1000 (comment)
Reviewers: teemperor, JDevlieghere, davide, shafik
Reviewed By: teemperor
Subscribers: kwk, arphaman, kadircet, lldb-commits
Tags: #lldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D61440
llvm-svn: 359868
From rule C.128
Can please someone help me to figure out why a destructor in a derived calls should not be declared override if the destructor is declared virtual in the base class.
Actually, this looks to me to be in contrast to the example in rule C.128. Maybe it is worth to address it in a separate rule.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: