carlosgalvezp added a comment. In D126891#3555456 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126891#3555456>, @steakhal wrote:
> In D126891#3554039 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D126891#3554039>, @carlosgalvezp > wrote: > >> Hmm, `MostDerived` **does** have a public virtual destructor in your example >> already - if the base class destructor is virtual, the child class >> destructor is virtual. In that sense the check should not warn. >> >> Seems like there's some deeper problem in the check? > > Not quite. None of the destructors are virtual in the example. In fact, the > `MostDerived` has a //public// and //non-virtual// destructor. Doesn't `Base` have a virtual destructor? As per the standard <https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n4140/class.dtor#9>: > If a class has a base class with a virtual destructor, its destructor > (whether user- or implicitly-declared) is virtual. To clarify: I'm not opposed to the patch, I'm just trying to understand if the AST is indeed implementing the Standard correctly and classifying the `Derived` destructor as virtual. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D126891/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D126891 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
