From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-02 16:30:21
On 5/2/08, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <rwgk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > In my opinion, this warning should be issued only if an attempt to
> > call the non-virtual destructor of a type with virtual functions
> > through a base class pointer is actually made, not simply because the
> > possibility exists.
> What's the disadvantage of adding the virtual destructors?
> It certainly is a huge disadvantage if -Wall cannot be used anymore.
> Until rev. 44954 everything we have compiled noise-free with -Wall
> (heaps of sources, many different gcc versions).
> I think the warning is useful. A library author cannot anticipate
> all situations in which the library may be used. If someone wants
> to derive from a class in a library and this triggers the smarter
> warning you propose for the first time, it is probably too late.
> If the library is part of the system headers it cannot be changed.
> The user is stuck.
I don't want to turn this into an argument; I only asked if there is
an official Boost policy on the subject. Is there a requirement that
boost compiles with -Wall without warnings on all compilers?
Reverge Studios, Inc.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk