To C++11 or not?

[Kevin Funk]

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 00:17:55 CET Stephen Kelly wrote:
> On 01/03/2017 10:36 PM, Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > El divendres, 30 de desembre de 2016, a les 15:32:24 CET, Martin Gräßlin
> > va
> > 
> > escriure:
> >> Am 2016-12-30 15:25, schrieb David Faure:
> >>> I fully agree that "having 'override' is actually super useful for
> >>> preventing
> >>> programmer faults", but that also works if it's spelled out
> >>> Q_DECL_OVERRIDE
> >>> and only ineffective for people *using* frameworks on an older system
> >>> with gcc
> >>> 4.6. It's still effective for all of us who are working on frameworks,
> >>> which
> >>> is where the benefit of "override" is.
> >> 
> >> What's the plan to enforce that? How is build.kde.org checking that we
> >> don't use override instead of Q_DECL_OVERRIDE?
> > 
> > I guess you can stop worrying. Stephen Kelly just reverted that change
> > that
> > had been approved in a review request without any discussion.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> We need to have a way to enable that warning flag which is accompanied
> by a way to resolve the huge amount warnings it generates. We can't just
> add that much noise to all the builds indefinitely.
> 
> clang-tidy seems to have a modernize-use-override feature. Can we run
> that on at least all frameworks before enabling this flag?

I can do that. Likely won't happen today though.

Cheers,
Kevin

> Thanks,
> 
> Steve.


-- 
Kevin Funk | kfunk at kde.org | http://kfunk.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20170104/4684d750/attachment.sig>