This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: A simple question about virtual destructors.
- From: Marcin BaczyÅski <marbacz at gmail dot com>
- To: K <kyb22 at rol dot ru>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:14:21 +0200
- Subject: Re: A simple question about virtual destructors.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <d4f9a327-ed5b-cc30-5d39-2bf3d2eeaf9d at rol dot ru>
2016-06-02 11:55 GMT+02:00 K <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> My question is what if a compiler will generate a virtual destructor (or
> convert a nonvirtual to virtual) in a base class if the base class has at
> least one virtual function and classes down in the hierarchy have
> nontrivial destructors? In other words make a compiler responsible for
> proper destruction of a polymorphic object.
> Are there any serious pros against this?
One thing that immediately comes to mind is the compiler would need to
know about those derived classes and their destructors when compiling
the base class.
>This suggestion can look stupid
> but just think how many type strokes and hours in searching of memory leaks
> this could save.
-Wnon-virtual-dtor or -Weffc++ could be of some help there.