Hi Markus, On Friday, 2014-05-23 03:14:30 +0200, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> so by going through Lsan reports I noted that we have a few classes in > formula that are marked with SAL_NO_VTABLE and therefore have no virtual > protected destructors, This prevents us from deleting some of these > instances and it looks like people just leaked them in the past. What actually leaks, given that these classes have no member variables and only define interfaces as pure abstract base classes one derives from? > Is there any reason not to remove the SAL_NO_VTABLE and make the destructor > virtual and public. I"m talking especially about > include/formula/IFunctionDescription.hxx where the use of SAL_NO_VTABLE > looks like premature optimization to me. This appears to me as exactly what the comment on SAL_NO_VTABLE in include/sal/types.h talks about. But no, if we really leak because of SAL_NO_VTABLE (this is on Windows, isn't it? because it's defined empty for other platforms) then I don't object to remove it, but then we should also remove the SAL_NO_VTABLE define. However, is it a prerequisite to have a non-virtual dtor when using SAL_NO_VTABLE? Or wouldn't adding a virtual to the dtor already solve the problem and not make Lsan stumble about? Eike -- LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer. GPG key ID: 0x65632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918 630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A Support the FSFE, care about Free Software! https://fsfe.org/support/?erack
pgpKN9UBzlugG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
