(attachment missing) Cursory review based on description: Sounds reasonable to me. Would want to check the C++98 behavior to ensure it is actually relevant/correct to imply the possibility of 'final' being used to fix the issue.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 1:37 AM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > the attached patch changes > > delete called on 'dnvd::B' that has virtual functions but non-virtual > destructor > > to > > delete called on non-final 'dnvd::B' that has virtual functions but > non-virtual destructor > > I'm not sure if it should only do this for c++11 and newer – the new > message is true in c++98 as well and I think we support final as an > extension in c++98. So this patch unconditionally changes the warning text. > > Nico > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
