Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Destructors aren’t virtual by default to not hurt when its not needed, which is fine.
But in case of a base class derived class scenario, is there any use case for not having a virtual destructor? If not could it be possible (does it make sense) for the compiler to complain if a class derives from a base class which has a public non virtual destructor (or no destructor) defined. And not just warn about it.
The problem with your idea is that it’s conceivable that someone is using a non-virtual base class destructor as an optimization (if you’re never going to destroy via a base-class pointer, then the missing virtual won’t hurt you, and still avoids the vtable entry).
Since it COULD be used, it’s allowed. I’d think an optional compiler warning might be a good idea, but not something in the language spec.