Re: GCC 4.0's std::binary_function and non-virtual dtors
On 2008-11-12 09:20:19 -0500, Dan Caugherty <dan.caugherty@gmail.com> said:
And yes, there is *no* dtor explicitly defined for
std::binary_function, so I assume we're using a non-virtual default
empty dtor instead. I'd expect as much for this particular struct
definition (no data members within it, just one reference). But IMO
the compiler is correct to flag this folly as a potential bug -- no
base class should ever use a non-virtual destructor, let alone a
standard library class.
Please describe a situation (other than testing for the base type) in
which you would need to convert a pointer to a type derived from
binary_function into a pointer to binary_function and then delete the
object through the converted pointer.
Unfortunately, even if I were to ignore this warning, the build system
for the ultimate target platform for this work will not; it has a
policy of treating all warnings as errors.
Bad rules make bad systems.
Any ideas on how I can get around this? Is there another way to use
std::binary_function and std::binder2nd that won't trigger these
warnings? Or must I just accept that the STL as implemented by GCC is
just ever-so-slightly broken?
It's not in the least bit broken. No implementation of binary_function
that I know of has a virtual destructor. That would be utterly
pointless.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]