[Bug c++/109740] -Woverloaded-virtual is too aggressive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Goomenuk --- Created attachment 56495 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56495&action=edit Overloaded virtual testcase Another relevant issue with gcc (GCC) 13.2.1 20231011 (Red Hat 13.2.1-4) and -Woverloaded-virtual. Overloading method f() in Derived class affects the warning that is caused by assignment operator! Woverloaded-virtual-test.cpp:6:28: warning: ‘virtual const Parent& Parent::operator=(int&)’ was hidden [-Woverloaded-virtual=] 6 | virtual const Parent & operator=(int &x) |^~~~ Woverloaded-virtual-test.cpp:15:8: note: by ‘constexpr Derived& Derived::operator=(const Derived&)’ 15 | struct Derived : public Parent |^~~
[Bug c++/109740] -Woverloaded-virtual is too aggressive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Goomenuk --- https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/using_declaration # In class definition ... If the derived class already has a member with the same name, parameter list, and qualifications, *the derived class member hides or overrides (doesn't conflict with) the member that is introduced from the base class*. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.1.0/gcc/C_002b_002b-Dialect-Options.html#index-Woverloaded-virtual In cases where the different signatures are not an accident, the simplest solution is to add a *using-declaration to the derived class to un-hide the base function*, e.g. add using A::f; to B. These two statements contradict each other, isn't it?
[Bug c++/109740] -Woverloaded-virtual is too aggressive
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109740 Alexander Goomenuk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emerg.reanimator at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 from Alexander Goomenuk --- Let consider the following case: - There is a base class that implement virtual assignment operator with arbitrary input argument (not copy operator). - There is a derived class that inherits the assignment operator from base class. g++ version >= 13 produces the warning in this case because implicitly-defined copy operator of derived class pretends to hide the user defined assignment operator of base class. The code is totally fine and the assignment operator works as expected. Even worse, the warning is produced by compiler even if no implicitly-defined copy operator is NOT generated by the compiler and the code fails to build due to the lack of copy operator. So the warning is misleading and incorrect in this case. See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/77378553/woverloaded-virtual-with-default-shallow-copy-operator for more details.
[Bug rtl-optimization/90255] [9/10/11 regression] r266385 caused code size regressions on Arm, thumb and thumb2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90255 Alexander Goomenuk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||emerg.reanimator at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 from Alexander Goomenuk --- Created attachment 49872 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49872&action=edit GCC Version Benchmarks Here is some GCC benchmarks of real-life scenarios. There are three applications (A,B,C) built for cortex-m3 ARM architecture using several GCC versions with two optimisation sets (Debug (D) and Release (R)). One may find the details in attached file [GCC_Benchmarks.txt]; Here is an summary of Application C build artifacts. * Application C, text size, --specs=nano.specs * MCU 9.2.1.1 MCU 9.3.1.4 MCU 10.2.1-1.1 ARM 9.3.1 ARM 10.2.1 D: 316864 321000 321316 317288 317476 041364452424 612 0,00 % 1,29 % 1,39 % 0,13 % 0,19 % R: 292748 296884 295968 293172 292128 620 4756384010440 0,21 % 1,60 % 1,30 % 0,36 % 0,00 %
