[Bug c++/18410] GCC does not warn about hidden methods

2006-10-16 Thread mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #4 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-10-16 15:34 ---
use -Woverloaded-virtual


-- 

mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mueller at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WORKSFORME


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18410

[Bug c++/18410] GCC does not warn about hidden methods

2006-09-06 Thread tvainika at gmail dot com 


--- Comment #3 from tvainika at gmail dot com  2006-09-06 07:31 ---
This same bug still applies to 
  g++-4.0 (GCC) 4.0.4 20060507 (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.3-3)
and
  g++-4.1 (GCC) 4.1.2 20060814 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-11)


-- 

tvainika at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tvainika at gmail dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18410

[Bug c++/18410] GCC does not warn about hidden methods

2004-11-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 
   What|Removed |Added

   Severity|normal  |enhancement
   Keywords||diagnostic


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18410

[Bug c++/18410] GCC does not warn about hidden methods

2004-11-09 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-09 
23:21 ---
Confirmed, I thought I saw this in a different bug.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed||1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-11-09 23:21:34
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18410

[Bug c++/18410] GCC does not warn about hidden methods

2004-11-09 Thread tron dot thomas at verizon dot net 

--- Additional Comments From tron dot thomas at verizon dot net  2004-11-10 
01:56 ---
Subject: Re:  GCC does not warn about hidden methods

I tried a serach before I entered the bug.  I couldn't find any results.

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2004-11-09 
23:21 ---
Confirmed, I thought I saw this in a different bug.

  





-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18410