gcc -Woverloaded-virtual

[André Wöbbeking]

On Saturday 17 November 2007, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> On Saturday 17 November 2007, André Wöbbeking wrote:
> >
> > It can be very handy but there're too many false positives, e.g. if
> > virtual void A::f(int) also exists. IMO too many to make this a
> > default option.
>
> It's not really a false positive as B::f() still gets hidden, no?

If you mean A::f(), yes.

> I agree that you sometimes don't care, e.g. if the implementation
> class is only used casted down to the interface class. 

This is the case that matters. If you try to call B::f() you get a 
compile error.

> Perhaps we 
> want to make it a configure switch then? Let's see how noisy it gets
> first I'd say...

OK