Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote: What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning? In general this type of diagnostic issue isn't very difficult to work on. First, I would recommend checking if we have a Bugzilla already open about it, otherwise open one, clarifying which specific existing warning you would like to see fixed or proposing a new one. Then, over these Christmas vacations you could even start playing with gdb and see if you can propose a patch... Thanks! Paolo.
Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
On 24 December 2011 10:50, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote: What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning? In general this type of diagnostic issue isn't very difficult to work on. First, I would recommend checking if we have a Bugzilla already open about it, otherwise open one, clarifying which specific existing warning you would like to see fixed or proposing a new one. Then, over these Christmas vacations you could even start playing with gdb and see if you can propose a patch... First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and see that I already added it ;-)
Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
On 12/24/2011 11:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and see that I already added it ;-) Oh indeed, now I remember it ;) Paolo.
Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
On 12/24/2011 12:03 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: On 12/24/2011 11:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and see that I already added it ;-) Oh indeed, now I remember it ;) which reminds me, that probably, since we are mentioning new warnings in changes.html, we could also add, for completeness, mine (judging by the number of PRs when it was still buggy, people are actually trying it ;) Paolo.
Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
2011/12/24 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com:
On 24 December 2011 10:50, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning?
First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and
see that I already added it ;-)
Ah, argh, sorry!
It turns out the file where clang caught the bug is the _one_ file in
my program I compile without -Wall ('cause it's automatically
generated code with ... er... lots of ... questionable stuff); clang
has this particular warning enabled by default, so it caught it
though...!
thanks,
-miles
--
Cat is power. Cat is peace.
Re: non-virtual-destructor warnings redux
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote: What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning? this one makes utmost sense. -- Gaby
