Question w.r.t. `'class Foo' has virtual functions but non-virtualdestructor` warning.

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

[...]

| > It seems that the warning could be improved to be emitted when the
| > *delete* is seen of a class without a virtual dtor (but that does
| > have virtual methods).  If you never actually do the questionable
| > behavior, you'd never get the warning.  It seems like a bug to emit
| > it for the class definition.
| 
| Age-old debate: better to warn early about possibly broken interfaces,
| or late about definitely broken usage?  I think that warning early,
| together with what DJ is calling fine-grained warning control is the
| best solution.

When that is a nuisance, I don't see how it is best solution.

-- Gaby