[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #29 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-04 16:24:50 UTC --- For G++ 4.7 I've added -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor, included in -Wall, to handle the case in comment 25, so closing this as fixed now
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-02 21:29:53 UTC --- (can this bug be un-ASSIGNED?) (In reply to comment #25) Here, H must have a virtual destructor. The point where it can know it should warn is the delete this; line. I've posted a patch to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00191.html which gives this for the code in comment 25 7302.cc:16:12: warning: deleting object of abstract class type ‘H’ which has non-virtual destructor will cause undefined behaviour [-Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor]
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|mueller at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #27 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-02 21:43:21 UTC --- Assigned to you Jonathan! Feel free to close it when your patch goes in. If there is something else left to do, it is always better to open a new PR.
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302 --- Comment #28 from Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-02 21:46:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #26) I've posted a patch to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00191.html which gives this for the code in comment 25 BTW, I would suggest that you use warning_at, but I guess this is a lost battle.
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #25 from cesarb at cesarb dot net 2007-08-21 10:54 ---
The testcase seems to be missing one case where it should warn:
class H
{
protected:
~H();
public:
virtual void deleteme() = 0;
};
H::~H()
{
}
void
H::deleteme()
{
delete this;
}
class I : public H
{
protected:
~I();
public:
virtual void deleteme() { H::deleteme(); }
void oops();
};
I::~I()
{
}
void
I::oops()
{
deleteme();
}
Here, H must have a virtual destructor. The point where it can know it should
warn is the delete this; line.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #24 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 15:08 --- Subject: Bug 7302 Author: jason Date: Mon Aug 20 15:08:24 2007 New Revision: 127649 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=127649 Log: PR c++/7302 * cp/class.c (finish_struct_1): Warn when a class has virtual functions and accessible non-virtual destructor. * doc/invoke.texi (-Wnon-virtual-dtor): Update documentation. * g++.dg/warn/Wnvdtor-2.C: New testcase. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn/Wnvdtor-2.C Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/cp/class.c trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #21 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-20 18:52 --- http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01343.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #22 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-20 19:01 --- (In reply to comment #21) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01343.html Hint, if you use the patch queue[1], it takes care of adding a comment pointing to the patch. Also, your patch lacks a Changelog [2]. See also an example [3]. [1] http://www.dberlin.org/patchdirections.html [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html [3] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg8.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #23 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-03-20 19:42 --- Subject: Bug number PR7302 A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker. The mailing list url for the patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg01347.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #17 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-16 15:22 --- Created an attachment (id=13214) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13214action=view) extended patch against gcc-4.2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #18 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 15:30 --- (In reply to comment #17) Created an attachment (id=13214) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13214action=view) [edit] extended patch against gcc-4.2 Hi Pawel, if the bug exists in mainline, the patch should be against mainline (I think this patch will apply to mainline anyway). The patch needs testcases, and it should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, + warning (0, %q#T has virtual functions and accessible + non-virtual destructor, t) should be: + warning (OPT_Wnon_virtual_dtor, +%q#T has virtual functions and accessible + non-virtual destructor, t) Also + || DECL_FRIENDLIST( TYPE_MAIN_DECL (t))) should be + || DECL_FRIENDLIST (TYPE_MAIN_DECL (t))) Thanks for the patch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #19 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-03-16 15:39 --- (In reply to comment #18) The patch needs testcases, i have a testcase but my tcl/autogen/dejagnu crashes with magic `spawn failed' message :/ e.g.: (...) Executing on host: /home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4.2-20070307/builddir/gcc/xgcc -B/home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4.2-20070307/builddir/gcc/ -O0 -w -fno-show-column -c -o 2105-1.o /home/users/pluto/rpm/BUILD/gcc-4.2-20070307/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/2105-1.c (timeout = 300) compiler exited with status -1 output is: spawn failed FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2105-1.c -O0 (test for excess errors) Excess errors: spawn failed -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-16 16:13 --- (In reply to comment #19) (In reply to comment #18) The patch needs testcases, i have a testcase but my tcl/autogen/dejagnu crashes with magic `spawn failed' message :/ No idea. Ask in the gcc list, perhaps someone could help you. I would just remove completely and reinstall DejaGNU. Or just use the GCC Compile Farm for testing. I have a script there that you just say PATCH=/path/to/patch ./gccfarming bootstrap And it bootstraps and regression tests the patch and sends you the results by email. It also has a patchqueue mode where filenames of patches are read from a file and bootstrapped+tested in sequence, and you can add more names at the end of the file on the fly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #14 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-22 00:13 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Already posted as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00885.html,
with no response.
this patch doesn't cover one situation:
struct D;
struct C {
virtual void f() = 0;
protected: // or private
friend class D;
~C();
};
in such case compiler should generate warning, because class D
can delete derived object through the pointer to class C.
--
pluto at agmk dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #15 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2007-02-22 01:10 --- Pawel: Yes, any friend class or function can call a protected or private destructor wrongly. So can members of the class - in fact, even pure virtual members can, since they may still have definitions! The current implementation warns whenever any function might be able to call a non-virtual destructor in a polymorphic class; this results in many false positives. False warnings result in programmers disabling the warning, or paying less attention to warnings, or (in this case) introducing a virtual destructor for no good reason. That is why I consider the behaviour a bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #16 from pluto at agmk dot net 2007-02-22 02:02 ---
quite better ( modulo coding style ) patch is:
--- class.c.orig2006-10-12 22:02:53.0 +0200
+++ class.c 2007-02-22 02:54:11.888652367 +0100
@@ -5105,15 +5105,15 @@
tree dtor;
dtor = CLASSTYPE_DESTRUCTORS (t);
- /* Warn only if the dtor is non-private or the class has
-friends. */
if (/* An implicitly declared destructor is always public. And,
if it were virtual, we would have created it by now. */
!dtor
|| (!DECL_VINDEX (dtor)
- (!TREE_PRIVATE (dtor)
- || CLASSTYPE_FRIEND_CLASSES (t)
- || DECL_FRIENDLIST (TYPE_MAIN_DECL (t)
+ (/* public non-virtual */
+ (!TREE_PRIVATE (dtor) !TREE_PROTECTED (dtor))
+ || (/* or non-public non-virtual with friends */
+ (TREE_PRIVATE (dtor) || TREE_PROTECTED (dtor))
+ (CLASSTYPE_FRIEND_CLASSES (t) || DECL_FRIENDLIST
(TYPE_MAIN_DECL (t)))
warning (0, %q#T has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor,
t);
}
it correctly warns on B, C and D classes:
struct A {
virtual void f() = 0;
protected:
~A(); // ok.
};
struct B {
virtual void f() = 0;
~B(); // warn! public non-virtual dtor.
};
struct C {
virtual void f() = 0;
// warn! implicit public non-virtual dtor.
};
struct D {
virtual void f() = 0;
private:
friend class C;
~D(); // warn! can be called from class C.
};
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #11 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 15:12 --- (In reply to comment #8) Created an attachment (id=11520) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11520action=view) [edit] proposed patch (with doc and test changes) Thanks for the patch. However, formal submissions are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] An attachment in bugzilla is not considered a formal submission and it may go unnoticed. Please, consider submitting to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (and perhaps also adding it to the patch queue: http://www.dberlin.org/patchdirections.html ) -- manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #12 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2007-02-13 16:16 --- Already posted as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00885.html, with no response. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-13 17:19 --- (In reply to comment #12) Already posted as http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00885.html, with no response. You need to insist. A week is normally considered an acceptable interval between pings. You need to bootstrap + regression test. http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing Short version: make make -k check Then, compare with the output without your patch. What I normally do is, for an unpatched tree: make (make -k check pristine) then patch and do the same saving the output in another file. Compare the two outputs (there is a compare tests script in the contrib/ directory). Of course, this is a very dirty and rough explanation. It is better to read the docs. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #9 from dee at pcds dot biz 2006-12-07 21:25 ---
I'd like to point out that structures containing only pure virtual functions
should not trigger this diagnostic either. Consider the following:
struct IfacFoo
{
virtual int a() = 0;
virtual int b() = 0;
};
There is no destructor declared nor do any members exist to necessitate the
implicit creation of one. As of version 4.1.1 20060525 (Red Hat 4.1.1-1), the
diagnostic message is still emitted in both this case and those with a
protected dummy destructor included.
--
dee at pcds dot biz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dee at pcds dot biz
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #10 from ben at decadent dot org dot uk 2006-12-08 00:40 --- Lawrence: Every class has a destructor. You're talking about classes that have trivial destructors. Whether a non-virtual destructor is trivial or not has no bearing on the fact that if an instance of a derived class is destroyed through a pointer or reference to a base class with a non-virtual destructor, the result is undefined behaviour. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
-- mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mueller at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords||patch Last reconfirmed|2005-12-11 23:01:26 |2006-10-16 15:26:28 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #8 from ben at decadentplace dot org dot uk 2006-05-27 15:30 --- Created an attachment (id=11520) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11520action=view) proposed patch (with doc and test changes) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Comment #7 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-03-19 12:21 --- Created an attachment (id=11068) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11068action=view) proposed patch patch, proposed at http://bugs.debian.org/356316 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-20 17:47 --- *** Bug 20570 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at cohi dot at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
[Bug c++/7302] -Wnon-virtual-dtor should't complain of protected dtor
-- What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7302
