Standardize usage of virtual/override/final in sandbox/

Standardize usage of virtual/override/final in sandbox/

The Google C++ style guide states:

  Explicitly annotate overrides of virtual functions or virtual
  destructors with an override or (less frequently) final specifier.
  Older (pre-C++11) code will use the virtual keyword as an inferior
  alternative annotation. For clarity, use exactly one of override,
  final, or virtual when declaring an override.

To better conform to these guidelines, the following constructs have
been rewritten:

- if a base class has a virtual destructor, then:
    virtual ~Foo();                   ->  ~Foo() override;
- virtual void Foo() override;        ->  void Foo() override;
- virtual void Foo() override final;  ->  void Foo() final;

This patch was automatically generated. The clang plugin can generate
fixit hints, which are suggested edits when it is 100% sure it knows how
to fix a problem. The hints from the clang plugin were applied to the
source tree using the tool in https://codereview.chromium.org/598073004.

BUG=417463
R=jln@chromium.org

Committed: https://crrev.com/1ff14e1244177135f84629b32f23e7cd303e129e
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#300587}

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2014-10-21 20:51:41]

jln@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rsesek@chromium.org

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2014-10-21 20:51:53]

Since all of this is in mac/, I'll defer to Robert.

[dcheng, 2014-10-21 20:52:22]

dcheng@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- rsesek@chromium.org

[Robert Sesek, 2014-10-21 20:52:40]

rsesek@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rsesek@chromium.org

[Robert Sesek, 2014-10-21 20:52:40]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
File sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc:72: demux_block_(request);
nit: please leave on separate line

[dcheng, 2014-10-21 20:53:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
File sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc:72: demux_block_(request);
On 2014/10/21 20:52:40, Robert Sesek wrote:
> nit: please leave on separate line

How strongly do you feel about this? This is how clang-format prefers it, and
I'd prefer not to fight it, especially in giant patches like this.

[Robert Sesek, 2014-10-21 20:58:37]

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
File sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc:72: demux_block_(request);
On 2014/10/21 20:53:57, dcheng wrote:
> On 2014/10/21 20:52:40, Robert Sesek wrote:
> > nit: please leave on separate line
> 
> How strongly do you feel about this? This is how clang-format prefers it, and
> I'd prefer not to fight it, especially in giant patches like this.

This is less readable. I feel strongly about not caring about what clang-format
outputs.

[dcheng, 2014-10-21 21:01:11]

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
File sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc:72: demux_block_(request);
On 2014/10/21 20:58:36, Robert Sesek wrote:
> On 2014/10/21 20:53:57, dcheng wrote:
> > On 2014/10/21 20:52:40, Robert Sesek wrote:
> > > nit: please leave on separate line
> > 
> > How strongly do you feel about this? This is how clang-format prefers it,
and
> > I'd prefer not to fight it, especially in giant patches like this.
> 
> This is less readable. I feel strongly about not caring about what
clang-format
> outputs.

I'll revert this particular line. However, note it's generally impractical for
me to do this on a large scale--due to the nature of this patch, reflowing some
lines is almost always going to be required and reverting all instances of this
(as I was asked to do in ipc/) is time consuming.

[dcheng, 2014-10-21 21:02:25]

The CQ bit was checked by dcheng@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-21 21:04:43]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/666193002/20001

[Robert Sesek, 2014-10-21 21:09:05]

LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
File sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/666193002/diff/1/sandbox/mac/xpc_message_serv...
sandbox/mac/xpc_message_server_unittest.cc:72: demux_block_(request);
On 2014/10/21 21:01:11, dcheng wrote:
> On 2014/10/21 20:58:36, Robert Sesek wrote:
> > On 2014/10/21 20:53:57, dcheng wrote:
> > > On 2014/10/21 20:52:40, Robert Sesek wrote:
> > > > nit: please leave on separate line
> > > 
> > > How strongly do you feel about this? This is how clang-format prefers it,
> and
> > > I'd prefer not to fight it, especially in giant patches like this.
> > 
> > This is less readable. I feel strongly about not caring about what
> clang-format
> > outputs.
> 
> I'll revert this particular line. However, note it's generally impractical for
> me to do this on a large scale--due to the nature of this patch, reflowing
some
> lines is almost always going to be required and reverting all instances of
this
> (as I was asked to do in ipc/) is time consuming.

Thanks. I appreciate that, but trading off readability for mechanized
convenience is not the right choice IMO.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 00:47:14]

Committed patchset #2 (id:20001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2014-10-22 04:04:21]

Patchset 2 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/1ff14e1244177135f84629b32f23e7cd303e129e
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#300587}