On 10/25/2017 06:20 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > My conclusion on the virtual dtor issue is that it's not strictly needed > right now. > > IIUC the issue is you could do something like > > base *foo = new derived (); > [ ... ] > delete foo; > > If the base's destructor is not virtual and foo is a base * pointing to > a derived object then the deletion invokes undefined behavior. > > In theory we shouldn't be doing such things :-) In fact, if there's a > way to prevent this with some magic on the base class I'd love to know > about it.
There is: make the base class destructor protected. Thanks, Pedro Alves
