https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80518
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Arnaud Desitter from comment #2) > Interesting. Shame that there is no rationale. > > I suppose that "-Wsuggest-override=2" could warn about "override" missing > for destructor. I'd just like to repeat my preference for named options over numeric warning levels here; named options are separately controllable and thus more useful. Maybe call it -Wsuggest-override-destructor instead?
