On 5/26/05, Caleb Tennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 26 May 2005 02:30 am, Duncan wrote: > > So the KDE problem... Is that what's causing all those virtual function > > but destructor isn't virtual type warnings whenever I compile a KDE ebuild > > with gcc4? > > No, that's just shoddy C++ coding that also needs to be fixed.
Sorry to cut in like this, but I get tired of comments like this. While this specific case might very well represent "shoddy" coding, there are perfectly good reasons to have non-virtual destructors in classes designed to be base classes. One common case is when COM-style reference counting is used. In such a scenario leaf classes always implement a release() member function which deletes 'this' when the reference count goes to zero. With this configuration there is no need for a virtual destructor since destructor chaining always happens from a leaf class. I hope one day GCC's warning for this will be smart enough to at least not complain about non-public non-virtual destructors in classes that otherwise contain virtual member functions. Then the warning will be useful and perhaps indicate "shoddy C++ coding". :-) // Andreas -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
