views:

1383

answers:

3

The following code generates warning C4250. My question is, what's the best solution to it?

class A
{
  virtual void func1();
}

class B : public A
{
}

class C : public A
{
  virtual void func1();
}

class D : public B, public C
{
}

int main()
{
  D d;
  d.func1(); // Causes warning
}

According to what I've read it should be possible to do this:

class D : public B, public C
{
  using B::func1();
}

But, this doesn't actually do anything. The way I've currently solved it is:

class D : public B, public C
{
  virtual void func1() { B::func1(); }
}

What's everyone's view on this?

+2  A: 

Did you try to inherit public virtual from class A? I think it should solve it.


    class B :public virtual A;
    class C :public virtual A;
    class D : public virtual B, public virtual C;

The virtual inheritance suppose to solve the ambiguity.

Gal Goldman
Yes, even with virtual inheritance it still has the same problem (there are two suitable functions to call, the compiler just chooses the most "overridden" one)
Mark Ingram
Then I guess there's no escape from your suggested solution.
Gal Goldman
I compiled your code now in VS2005 and without the virtual it's actually an error, not a warning. With the virtual it's a warning.
Gal Goldman
A: 

I think the solution you're using may be the way to go, sorry to say. The only thing I can think of that might help is if you're able to make A's func1 pure virtual. That might not be feasible in your real program, though.

Evan Shaw
Unfortunately there is a bug in visual studio which means that warning will still appear ;)
Mark Ingram
+5  A: 

I had the same warning for the following code:

class Interface
{
public:
    virtual void A() = 0;
};

class Implementation : public virtual Interface
{
public:
    virtual void A() {};
};

class ExtendedInterface : public virtual Interface
{
    virtual void B() = 0;
};

class ExtendedImplementation : public ExtendedInterface , public Implementation
{
public:
    virtual void B() {};
};

This bug report for Visual C++ 2005 in msdn suggests that this is a known bug that was considered not important enough to fix... They suggest to disable the warning in this case by using a pragma. I think it is safe also in your case, but you should use virtual inheritance as shown in the answer by Gal Goldman.

Dani van der Meer