David Carlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:15:41 -0600 (CST), Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
|
| > It's not a matter of warning vs not warning: it's a matter of
| > emitting bogus warnings *sometimes* when you can emit the proper
| > warning *all of the time*.
|
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:06:27PM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote:
| > In my mind, the times you want to silence the warning (without defining
| > the virtual dtor) are when you *know* that it will never be used that way,
| > because it's part of the contract o
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > It seems that the warning could be improved to be emitted when the
| > *delete* is seen of a class without a virtual dtor (but that does
| > have virtual methods). If you never actually do the questionable
| > behavior, you'd never get the warn
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Karel Gardas wrote:
| > Yes, that's undefined, but I just define this class to be able to do:
| > Foo* f = dynamic_cast(x);
| > l = f->iiop_version();
| > there is nothing like delete involved. Anyway, I agree with you that
| > emit warning about this is
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:06:27PM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote:
> In my mind, the times you want to silence the warning (without defining
> the virtual dtor) are when you *know* that it will never be used that way,
> because it's part of the contract of the class.
In my view, if a class defines v
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 19:15:41 -0600 (CST), Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> It's not a matter of warning vs not warning: it's a matter of
> emitting bogus warnings *sometimes* when you can emit the proper
> warning *all of the time*.
I don't think you can emit the proper warning all of t
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Chris Lattner wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point here. The library developer writes a
class, and does not *want* it to be destroyed through the base class. As a
library designer, I can intentionally make the dtor protected, making it
pretty cle
Chris Lattner wrote:
I'm not sure I understand your point here. The library developer writes
a class, and does not *want* it to be destroyed through the base class.
As a library designer, I can intentionally make the dtor protected,
making it pretty clear that delete should not be called on th
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Chris Lattner wrote:
Age-old debate: better to warn early about possibly broken interfaces, or
late about definitely broken usage? I think that warning early, together
with what DJ is calling fine-grained warning control is the best solution.
I don't agre
Chris Lattner wrote:
Age-old debate: better to warn early about possibly broken interfaces,
or late about definitely broken usage? I think that warning early,
together with what DJ is calling fine-grained warning control is the
best solution.
I don't agree at all on this. It's not a matter of
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've run into this warning with C++ code as well, and it is quite annoying.
There are lots of possible reasons to want to do this sort of thing, and
adding a virtual dtor increases the size of the vtable for the class.
Yeah, there goes one whole pointer pe
Chris Lattner wrote:
I've run into this warning with C++ code as well, and it is quite
annoying. There are lots of possible reasons to want to do this sort of
thing, and adding a virtual dtor increases the size of the vtable for
the class.
Yeah, there goes one whole pointer per class in your pr
Karel Gardas wrote:
Yes, that's undefined, but I just define this class to be able to do:
Foo* f = dynamic_cast(x);
l = f->iiop_version();
there is nothing like delete involved. Anyway, I agree with you that
emit warning about this is probably the right thing to do and so I will
fix my code.
I've
13 matches
Mail list logo
