Implicitly deleted function overrides deleted virtual function

Question

This is more of a theoretical question about the interpretation of the standard in one particular case, given below:

struct B;

struct A {
    virtual bool operator ==(const B&) const = delete;
};

struct B : A {
    bool operator ==(const B&) const = default;
};

This program is rejected by GCC, EDG, MSVC with the

error: nondeleted function overrides deleted function "A::operator=="

which looks reasonable according to https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/function :

A deleted function can only be overridden by deleted functions

But Clang actually admits the program with the

note: defaulted 'operator==' is implicitly deleted because there is no viable 'operator==' for base class 'A'

Online demo: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/n83nGE7dW

Which implementation is correct here?

Aren't they all correct? They are all issuing a diagnostic which is all that is really required for ill formed code IIRC. — NathanOliver
– NathanOliver, Commented Mar 31 at 18:45
While I suspect Clang is, strictly speaking, conforming by just issuing a diagnostic, the program should definitely be rejected. Even the warning text isn't really correct: the defaulted operator== can't be implicitly deleted, since it simply can't be overriden to be defaulted. — cigien
– cigien, Commented Mar 31 at 19:06
@cigien — the point of only requiring a diagnostic is to allow compiler-specific extensions. Making B::operator== implicitly deleted sounds like a reasonable extension. — Pete Becker
– Pete Becker, Commented Mar 31 at 19:24
@PeteBecker Hmm, in general, yes, but this one being intentional seems odd. I would be curious to see what the response is to an [accepts-invalid] bug report. — cigien
– cigien, Commented Mar 31 at 19:33
Doesn't defaulting it simply make it deleted? It's not like it's actually making it callable. If one tries that, clang refuses too. — Ted Lyngmo
– Ted Lyngmo, Commented Mar 31 at 20:45

StoryTeller - Unslander Monica · Accepted Answer · 2025-03-31 22:12:55Z

3

The standard is just vauge enough on this to make me accept both interpretations (of Clang vs the others) as valid. Because as written we have

[class.virtual]

17 A deleted function ([dcl.fct.def]) shall not override a function that is not deleted. Likewise, a function that is not deleted shall not override a deleted function.

The standard only says that we can't have a mismatch of non-deleted to deleted (implicitly or explicitly - [dcl.fct.def.delete]/1) between base definition and overrider (or vice-versa). What's absent is that there's no explicit requirement for the two functions to be deleted in the same way. I.e. nothing says both have to be explicitly deleted, or implicitly deleted; nothing says we can't have them deleted in different ways, like the OP does.

Now, is it reasonable to allow it as Clang does, with a warning? Yes, it is. We don't violate anything in the standard to warrant a diagnostic (to my reading), and there's an "obvious" meaning to the code since the function is deleted either-way. Furthermore, the warning tells us we might have done somthing we didn't mean to. Clang encourages us to delete explicitly if we wish to keep the overrider and silence the warning.

Is it reasonable to reject the code until we explicitly delete? I'd say "yes" to that as well, it's a small change at the end of the day, that Clang is suggesting as well. Not unreasonable to require the programmer to be explicit.

On the whole, this might warrant a small core issue to get all compilers to the same baseline. But there isn't really a whole lot broken here.

answered Mar 31 at 22:12

StoryTeller - Unslander Monica

172k22 gold badges401 silver badges481 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

NathanOliver Mar 31 at 22:22

100% agree. The standard does not differentiate warnings from errors, it just requires a message about the situation be emitted. Since the function is never used there is no reason why clang can't just make a do nothing main function and just issue a warning.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Implicitly deleted function overrides deleted virtual function

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related