On 4 June 2011 16:49, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/04/2011 08:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> + if (CLASSTYPE_PURE_VIRTUALS (type))
>> + warning(OPT_Wdelete_non_virtual_dtor,
>> + "deleting object of abstract class type %qT"
>> +
On 06/04/2011 08:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ if (CLASSTYPE_PURE_VIRTUALS (type))
+ warning(OPT_Wdelete_non_virtual_dtor,
+ "deleting object of abstract class type %qT"
+ " which has non-virtual destructor"
+
New patch using CLASSTYPE_PURE_VIRTUALS, thanks for that.
Bootstrapped and tested again on x86_64-linux, no regressions.
ChangeLogs as before, OK for trunk?
Index: c-family/c.opt
===
--- c-family/c.opt (revision 174624)
+++ c-fa
On 06/03/2011 04:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 June 2011 02:55, Jason Merrill wrote:
Do we really want to warn about the case where the class has no/trivial
destructor?
I think so. Definitely if it's an abstract class, since it's
definitely undefined behaviour. The user might have for
On 3 June 2011 02:55, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 06:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> + if (!dtor || !DECL_VINDEX (dtor))
>
> Do we really want to warn about the case where the class has no/trivial
> destructor?
I think so. Definitely if it's an abstract class, since it's
On 06/02/2011 06:02 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
+ if (!dtor || !DECL_VINDEX (dtor))
Do we really want to warn about the case where the class has no/trivial
destructor?
+ bool abstract = false;
+ for (x = TYPE_METHODS (type); x; x = DECL_CHAIN (x))
On 2 June 2011 22:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> -Wnon-virtual-dtor isn't always what you want, defining a polymorphic
> object without a virtual destructor is not necessarily a mistake. You
> may never delete such an object so instead of warning when the class
> is defined it's more useful to warn o
