--- Comment #9 from Thomas dot Lange at sun dot com 2009-07-13 12:07
---
(In reply to comment #6)
I'm not concerned about that case.
Thank you for your time!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31397
--- Comment #8 from Thomas dot Lange at sun dot com 2009-07-13 12:02
---
(In reply to comment #6)
Ooops... Sorry!
I just was told that I confused those two terms. >_<
(That might happen to non-native speakers)
My apologies!
Yes you are correct. It is about overwriting.
--
--- Comment #6 from Thomas dot Lange at sun dot com 2009-07-13 11:56
---
(In reply to comment #5)
No. I do mean overloaded!
It might be nice to have a warning for overloading virtual functions of base
classes as well. But my point is that the compiler should help to enforce that
--- Comment #4 from Thomas dot Lange at sun dot com 2009-07-08 10:30
---
Side note: Of course having such an option is much more useful where the
declaration of class A and B are in different header files and probably even in
different modules.
(For example: such cases are often found
--- Comment #3 from Thomas dot Lange at sun dot com 2009-07-08 10:23
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> why don't you add a 'virtual'
> to your destructor and int f(int) functions, because they are implicitly
> virtual anyway'.
That is exactly the point this
derived classes used without 'virtual')
Product: gcc
Version: 3.4.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: Thomas d
