https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399
--- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > It might be valid with a custom deleter, but the example shown has undefined > behaviour. When the derived class does not add any member or redefine any important functionality, it is not an uncommon technique to call the base class destructor on a derived class. It might pedantically be illegal, but it is useful, and I believe some people would like to avoid the warning when the two destructors are equivalent.
