Re: [boost] [statechart] Problems if I make dtorS virtual?

From: BRIDGES Dick (Dick.Bridges_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-29 17:39:34

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Andreas Huber
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 3:00 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [statechart] Problems if I make dtorS virtual?
> 
> BRIDGES Dick wrote:
> > Just a thought - might it be worthwhile to introduce a policy to
allow
> > the
> > user to choose between maximum performance and the comforting
> > consistency
> > of virtual dtorS to go with those virtual functions? :-)
> 
> Ugh, yet another policy or #define? I'd want to avoid that. Since this
> is gcc-only problem, I think the best I can do is to make that
> destructor virtual for gcc and leave it non-virtual for all other
> compilers.
> 
> Thoughts?

My $.02 says to leave the destructor non-virtual across the board and
I sell -Wno-non-vitual-dtor to my QA group.  Otherwise some embedded
device will show up that favors non-virtual and I'll be the one asking
you to put it back so our gcc-based cross-compilers can use it. ;)

That and the threat of a #define. %-P

> Regards,
> 
> --
> Andreas Huber
> 
> When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap
> from the address shown in the header.
> 

Regards,
Dick Bridges