From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-03 08:35:57
on Sun Dec 02 2007, Juergen Hunold <juergen.hunold-AT-ivembh.de> wrote:
> Hi Dave !
> On Sonntag 02 Dezember 2007, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Uh, wait: missing virtual d'tors? Sorry, I should have paid more
>> attention. That warning is bogus and I certainly don't want anyone
>> "fixing" it if there are no other virtual functions in the class.
> No, they all have "real" virtual functions.
>> And even if there are other virtual functions, I think it's a
>> suspicious change to make. Please back out any added virtual dtors!
> I agree that this warning is bogus. The evil thing is that you can't
> disabled it, at least on gcc :-((
> I've reverted Â revisions 41544 and 41549, rerun the tests and attached
> the compressed test output. The nasty thing is that it is triggered
> during template instation which will polute the output with even more
> bogus messages. Please take a closer look at both the patch and the
> compiler log. I'll revert the changes in the meantime.
> I love atomic commits ;-))
I don't mind the patch so much if there are real virtual functions
there. Do whatever you think best.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk