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 virtual functions, then this implies that the class is intended to be derived from, so a non-virtual destructor is asking for trouble and should be warned about, even if there is no "delete". If it has no virtual functions, then (since C++ has no "final" keyword), the lack of a virtual destructor should not trigger a warning even if the object is deleted. > >I could agree that there should be no warning if the class declares a > >private operator delete. But, that kind of thing is a refinement. > > I think this would be a great refinement (if you extended it to protected > dtors also). Nope. If there's a protected destructor, then that means that it will form only *part* of the destructor of the derived class, so it's still an error if a pointer to Base can delete a Derived. Solving the points-to problem exactly is undecidable, so ...
