http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16166
--- Comment #7 from David Stone <david at doublewise dot net> 2012-05-29 20:57:22 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > * Item 11: Define a copy constructor and an assignment operator for classes > > with dynamically allocated memory. > > > > -Wcopy-resource-class > > IMHO this warning should just go. With deleted copy ctor/assign and move > ctor/assign there are even more places where a hard and fast rule isn't > useful. > And in general, classes should just use a smart pointer from boost / the standard library, rather than managing their own memory directly. I agree that this warning probably isn't that useful, and I wouldn't be sad to see it go. > > * Item 12: Prefer initialization to assignment in constructors. > > > > -Wassignment-in-constructor > > If I ever get my -Wmeminit patch working properly it would provide this. Is the issue just finding the time to do it, or are there subtle issues involved? > > * Item 14: Make destructors virtual in base classes. > > > > Already covered by -Wnon-virtual-dtor > > And the more useful -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor Yeah, my only thought for the usefulness of -Wnon-virtual-dtor over -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor is that a library author may wish to have a class that users are supposed to derive from, but doesn't actually call delete anywhere in the library code. They may want to ensure that users of the library (who may not have any warnings turned on at all) do not run into any surprising bugs. (In reply to comment #6) > David, if you wish to implement such a patch (or, even better, series of > patches, one for each new option), the only changes needed are: > I am currently writing up a patch to update doc/invoke.texi for warnings, to try and make it easier to see what is turned on by -Wall and -Wextra and what isn't. Do you think it would be best for me to submit a patch based on the current documentation, my updated documentation (as a separate patch, of course), or some combination of the two?
