------- Comment #9 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-07-21 17:36 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > > This is also not conforming to the "specification" in > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/1999-08n/msg01069.html > > Warn when a derived class function declaration may be an error in > defining a virtual function. In a derived class, the definitions of > virtual functions must match the type signature of a virtual > function declared in the base class. With this option, the compiler > warns when you define a function with the same name as a virtual > function, but with a type signature that does not match any > declarations from the base class.
But that's not what it does. The description in the manual describes the current behaviour correctly, that description above doesn't. (In reply to comment #6) > A really wild-guess patch. Comments? ... > + /* If at least one method has the same signature, > + the not overloaded variants are just > + hidden. */ > + just_hidden = true; Shouldn't this say "not overridden variants" ? I don't like the name -Wpartial-overloaded-virtual for the same reason. The name should clearly distinguish whether it is triggered by overloading, overriding or hiding. -Woverloaded-virtual is a reasonable name for the current behaviour; it triggers if there is an overload that hides a virtual (whether the overload is itself virtual or not.) The proposed -Wpartial-overloaded-virtual name makes no sense. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20423
