Hi No specific destructor doesn't means no code generated, as we can see, two OUString could be leaked by not executing SfxListUndoAction destructor. Also an issue for me.
2013/12/7 julien2412 <serval2...@yahoo.fr> > Similarly, there's CID#708952 (see > > https://scan5.coverity.com:8443/reports.htm#v22002/p10276/fileInstanceId=47973599&defectInstanceId=14481123&mergedDefectId=708952 > ). > Here, there's no consequence, since there's no specific destructor in > SfxListUndoAction. But if there's one in the future, it won't be taken into > account since destructor of SfxUndoArray isn't virtual > (see http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/include/svl/undo.hxx#136) > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LO-scan-coverity-708945-non-virtual-destructor-in-parent-class-tp4087082p4087118.html > Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > LibreOffice mailing list > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice > -- Arnaud Versini
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
