[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez 2011-06-02 21:46:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #26) > I've posted a patch to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00191.html > which gives this for the code in comment 25 BTW, I would suggest th

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mueller at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-06-02 21:29:53 UTC --- (can this bug be un-ASSIGNED?) (In reply to comment #25) > Here, H must have a virtual destructor. The point where it can know it should > warn is the "delete this;" line. I've pos

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #25 from cesarb at cesarb dot net 2007-08-21 10:54 --- The testcase seems to be missing one case where it should warn: class H { protected: ~H(); public: virtual void deleteme() = 0; }; H::~H() { } void H::deleteme() { delete this; } class I : publ

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 15:08 --- Subject: Bug 7302 Author: jason Date: Mon Aug 20 15:08:24 2007 New Revision: 127649 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127649 Log: PR c++/7302 * cp/class.c (finish_struct_1): Warn

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #23 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-03-20 19:42 --- Subject: Bug number PR7302 A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker. The mailing list url for the patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01347.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-20 19:01 --- (In reply to comment #21) > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01343.html > Hint, if you use the patch queue[1], it takes care of adding a comment pointing to the patch. Also, your patch lacks a Changelog [

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-20 18:52 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01343.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someo

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 16:13 --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > > The patch needs testcases, > > i have a testcase but my tcl/autogen/dejagnu crashes > with magic `spawn failed' message :/ > No idea. Ask in the gcc list,

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #19 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-16 15:39 --- (In reply to comment #18) > The patch needs testcases, i have a testcase but my tcl/autogen/dejagnu crashes with magic `spawn failed' message :/ e.g.: (...) Executing on host: /home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4.2-20070307

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 15:30 --- (In reply to comment #17) > Created an attachment (id=13214) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13214&action=view) [edit] > extended patch against gcc-4.2 > Hi Pawel, if the bug exists in mainline,

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #17 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-16 15:22 --- Created an attachment (id=13214) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13214&action=view) extended patch against gcc-4.2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- You are receiving this

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #16 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-22 02:02 --- quite better ( modulo coding style ) patch is: --- class.c.orig2006-10-12 22:02:53.0 +0200 +++ class.c 2007-02-22 02:54:11.888652367 +0100 @@ -5105,15 +5105,15 @@ tree dtor; dtor = CLASSTY

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #15 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2007-02-22 01:10 --- Pawel: Yes, any friend class or function can call a protected or private destructor wrongly. So can members of the class - in fact, even pure virtual members can, since they may still have definitions! The curren

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #14 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-22 00:13 --- (In reply to comment #12) > Already posted as , > with no response. this patch doesn't cover one situation: struct D; struct C { virtual void f() = 0; prote

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 17:19 --- (In reply to comment #12) > Already posted as , > with no response. > You need to insist. A week is normally considered an acceptable interval between pings.

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #12 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2007-02-13 16:16 --- Already posted as , with no response. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 15:12 --- (In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=11520) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11520&action=view) [edit] > proposed patch (with doc and test changes) > Thanks for the patch. However,

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #10 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2006-12-08 00:40 --- Lawrence: Every class has a destructor. You're talking about classes that have trivial destructors. Whether a non-virtual destructor is trivial or not has no bearing on the fact that if an instance of a derived cla

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #9 from dee at pcds dot biz 2006-12-07 21:25 --- I'd like to point out that structures containing only pure virtual functions should not trigger this diagnostic either. Consider the following: struct IfacFoo { virtual int a() = 0; virtual int b() = 0; }; There is no d

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

-- fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fang at csl dot cornell dot |

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

-- mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

--- Comment #8 from ben at decadentplace dot org dot uk 2006-05-27 15:30 --- Created an attachment (id=11520) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11520&action=view) proposed patch (with doc and test changes) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 -

[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

-- ben at decadentplace dot org dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ben at decadentplace dot org |

-Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor

>Submitter-Id: net >Originator:Cesar Eduardo Barros >Organization: >Confidential: no >Synopsis: -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Category: c++ >Class: sw-bug >Re