Quuxplusone added a comment.
FWIW, I think the example you gave is **correct** for GCC to warn on. You said:
class Base {
virtual void foo(); // to be overridden
void foo(int); // implemented in terms of foo()
};
foo(int) is hidden in derived classes. So if someone derives from Base (which
someone must, because Base is polymorphic), then the derived class violates the
Liskov substitution principle: it doesn't have an `obj.foo(42)` method. The
correct solution is to rename the implementation method from `foo()` to e.g.
`fooImpl()` or (my personal style, following the NVI idiom) `do_foo()`.
GCC is correct to warn that this code is confusing and hard to maintain because
of name hiding. The solution is to adjust the code until it is clear and
maintainable, at which point it'll no longer trigger the warning. I don't see
any problem with GCC's warning here.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D82617
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
