Re: -Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-15 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/13/2012 02:24 PM, Stephan Bergmann wrote: [1] There might be a way around that after all, adding a non-virtual, protected destructor to the C++ classes representing UNO interfaces. Will look into that. [2] "-Wnon-virtual-dtor should't comp

Re: -Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-13 Thread Arnaud Versini
12 03:00 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: > >> On Tuesday 13 of March 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >> >>> On 03/13/2012 11:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: >>> >>>> Hmm, now that the reason for using -Wno-non-virtual-dtor has been >>>> documented (**760e0

Re: -Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-13 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/13/2012 03:00 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: On Tuesday 13 of March 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 03/13/2012 11:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: Hmm, now that the reason for using -Wno-non-virtual-dtor has been documented (760e0d2d7329ca6fc00a8439715bae38becb168a ), I wonder, should we globally

Re: -Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-13 Thread Lubos Lunak
On Tuesday 13 of March 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 03/13/2012 11:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > > Hmm, now that the reason for using -Wno-non-virtual-dtor has been > > documented (760e0d2d7329ca6fc00a8439715bae38becb168a ), I wonder, > > should we globally t

Re: -Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-13 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/13/2012 11:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist wrote: Hmm, now that the reason for using -Wno-non-virtual-dtor has been documented (760e0d2d7329ca6fc00a8439715bae38becb168a ), I wonder, should we globally then also turn off the corresponding MSVC warning? That would be kinda predictable (from a &quo

-Wno-non-virtual-dtor

2012-03-13 Thread Tor Lillqvist
Hmm, now that the reason for using -Wno-non-virtual-dtor has been documented (760e0d2d7329ca6fc00a8439715bae38becb168a ), I wonder, should we globally then also turn off the corresponding MSVC warning? That would be kinda predictable (from a "the usual waste of time" point of view)