RFR (XS): 8017578 : Hotspot compilation error with latest Studio compiler

[Vladimir Kozlov]

Stupid C++ :(

Fine, we go with adding 'virtual'.

Vladimir

On 7/8/13 11:10 AM, David Chase wrote:
> So where do we stand on this?  I'm in favor of my change because it works and we don't care about the last scrap of adlc performance anyway.  I tried alternatives but they did not work.
>
> David
>
> On 2013-07-04, at 3:13 PM, David Chase <david.r.chase at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2013-07-02, at 5:31 PM, Vladimir Kozlov <vladimir.kozlov at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am fine to make base destructor virtual. My question is why we need these destructors at all if they are all empty?
>>
>> Removing the destructors does not help; I tried that, and I still got the "polymorphic needs virtual destructor".
>> I think the reasoning is a subclass with an interesting destructor could always be created,
>> and if that happened then delete of a base class (with "no" destructor) would fail to run the subclass destructor
>> and that could lead to leaks.
>>
>> So I did try getting rid of destructors, (including Form, MatchNode, and MatchRule, as well as others in that hierarchy)
>> and the message did not go away.
>>
>> David
>>
>