OK.
Jason
Hi again,
today I had a look to clone_function_decl & co, and came up with the
below. I understand DECL_DELETING_DESTRUCTOR_P would work as well...
Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
///
2011-10-08 Paolo Carlini
PR c++/34927
* typeck2.c (abstract_virtuals
> Yes, isn't simply not using a static a rather straightforward alternative?
Ok, now I see: since it's easy, better avoid using *any* sort of flag, I'll do
it.
Paolo
Hi,
> This seems like it will only complain once per translation unit about virtual
> destructors.
Oops, sorry, but this specific issue could be solved rather easily by not using
a static, right?
> How about instead of this flag, we look at which variant it is and only
> complain about one o
On 10/08/2011 12:56 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
The fix seems easy: output a cloned destructor only once (+ output any
other member functions normally).
+ static bool done_cloned_dest = false;
This seems like it will only complain once per translation unit about
virtual destructors. H
Hi,
this diagnostic PR is about duplicate inform messages for this kind of
testcase, where C has a cloned destructor:
class A {};
struct C : A
{
virtual ~C () = 0;
} c;
The fix seems easy: output a cloned destructor only once (+ output any
other member functions normally). Patch tested x8
