On Sunday 15 April 2012 09:46:19 Daniel James wrote:
On 14 April 2012 22:30, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev@gmail.com> wrote:
My understanding is that checked_delete is intended to protect against freeing a pointer of an incomplete type, not against a missing virtual destructor. It is a tool of itself which can be used outside shared_ptr and in these cases a warning may be most appropriate. IMHO, if shared_ptr aims to support valid behavior in the lack of a virtual destructor, it should deal with the warnings itself.
I don't think shared_ptr can do that. There are two places where the warning can be dealt with (the delete command and the deleted object), neither of which are part of shared_ptr. Unless I've missed something the only way it could deal with it without changing checked_delete is to use its own implementation of checked_delete. If shared_ptr can't use checked_delete then that suggests to me a real weakness in checked_delete. The solution *might* be to add another function to checked_delete that doesn't warn.
Using a separate implementation of checked_delete in shared_ptr is what I had in mind. And this implementation should not be public, I think.