http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17920
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #13 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-01-06 11:58
---
See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2928.htm which is
part of the current C++ draft
Related to Bug 31397 and Bug 36848 - we don't need three open bugs requesting
similar features. I've
--- Comment #12 from shcherbakov at daad-alumni dot de 2010-01-05 16:27
---
I would also appreciate if an attribute like this is supported by gcc due to
several reasons:
1. Developers that want to ensure that a virtual method actually overrides
another virtual method of a base class
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-27 22:02
---
*** Bug 36796 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from Woebbeking at web dot de 2008-11-30 15:46 ---
And if you've many overloads of a virtual function and override only one you
also get a warning. And in some projects this happens very often :-(
So I also support this suggestion!
--
Woebbeking at web dot de
--- Comment #7 from thomas dot mcguire at gmx dot net 2008-08-21 18:43
---
Just want to add my support for this feature.
I had quite some bugs which I would have discovered earlier if this warning
here was implemented.
In particular, in KDE4/Qt4, lots of virtual functions were removed
--- Comment #8 from pluto at agmk dot net 2008-08-21 19:04 ---
why just not to use -Woverloaded-virtual?
$ g++ reimpl.cpp -Wall -c -Woverloaded-virtual
reimpl.cpp:1: warning: 'virtual void A::foo() const' was hidden
reimpl.cpp:2: warning: by 'void B::foo()'
--
--- Comment #9 from thomas dot mcguire at gmx dot net 2008-08-21 19:15
---
why just not to use -Woverloaded-virtual?
Because that does not help if the virtual function was completely removed from
the base class. We actually do use -Woverloaded-virtual, btw.
--
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-11 09:28
---
(In reply to comment #4)
I disagree with the notion that it is just a diagnostic related issue;
because it comes with a semantics part. Let's not not disguise a
language extension under the name of
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-10-11 12:54 ---
I concur with Giovanni: this is a case very much like the format
checking for printf and attribute sentinel. If you simply remove
the attribute statement, then the generated code is exactly the
same in all
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-10-10 22:41
---
As far as I can tell, this is just a hint for the compiler to generate better
diagnostic. Pretty much like attribute(sentinel) for instance: we just give the
compiler more information, we are not modifying
--- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-10-10 22:46 ---
Subject: Re: add __attribute__((reimpl)) as a replacement for the (optional) virtual
keyword for reimplementations of virtual functions
giovannibajo at libero dot it [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| As far as I
12 matches
Mail list logo
