Re: [Bug c++/16190] make -Wnon-virtual-dtor more sophisticated

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From ncm at cantrip dot org  2004-06-25 19:46 -------
> > Actually, it is necessary and sufficient to generate the warning
> > only for delete expressions or pseudo-destructror calls.
> 
> Even then it could just as easily be a correct, non-polymorphic
> deletion, with no way to "fix" it short of patching the original
> header.  That's why the warning belongs in -Weffc++: it's where 
> we dump warnings that are about as likely to be spurious as not.
> I.e., even restricting the warnings to deletions would just cause
> frustration when the deletion occurs in a standard-library template 
> instantiation.
> 
> bangerth asked, "why -Weffc++ at all?"  Because people insist on 
> putting in warnings that trigger on perfectly good code, for what 
> appear to be ideological reasons.  If we can't keep them out of 
> the compiler, at least we can stuff them someplace where they only
> needle people who like that sort of thing.


First I thought -Weffc++ warnings comes from a book and that is why
they are all together.


Second I would look into the history of the flag of -Wall and see
why this warning is there.  Usually there is a reason why warnings
are here.

Andrew