Richi mentioned in PR113476 that it would be cleaner to move the
destructor from int_range to the base class. Although this isn't
strictly necessary, as there are no users, it is good to future proof
things, and the overall impact is miniscule.
gcc/ChangeLog:
* value-range.h (vrange::~vrange): New.
(int_range::~int_range): Make final override.
---
gcc/value-range.h | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/value-range.h b/gcc/value-range.h
index e7f61950a24..b7c83982385 100644
--- a/gcc/value-range.h
+++ b/gcc/value-range.h
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ public:
virtual void set_zero (tree type) = 0;
virtual void set_nonnegative (tree type) = 0;
virtual bool fits_p (const vrange &r) const = 0;
+ virtual ~vrange () { }
bool varying_p () const;
bool undefined_p () const;
@@ -382,7 +383,7 @@ public:
int_range (tree type);
int_range (const int_range &);
int_range (const irange &);
- virtual ~int_range ();
+ ~int_range () final override;
int_range& operator= (const int_range &);
protected:
int_range (tree, tree, value_range_kind = VR_RANGE);
--
2.44.0
