| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
R=thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/1089823004
|
|
This is done by explicitly adding a virtual dtor to interface classes,
since the cost is small given that there are already virtual functions.
The exceptions are for classes that have a Release() or Delete() method,
in which case it is non-virtual and protected to indicate that the virtual
class is never the deletion point.
BUG=
R=brucedawson@chromium.org, thestig@chromium.org
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/810883005
|
|
Should there be cases where this fails to compile, it indicates a mistake,
either an incorrectly declared overrriden virtual method, or a method that
should be declared non-virtual.
The only issues were with CPDF_CustomAccess::GetBlock(), CPDF_CustomAccess::GetByte(),
and CPDF_CustomAccess::GetFullPath(). These don't appear to be used anywhere,
and are removed. Two members are removed that are no longer needed once those
methods are removed.
R=jam@chromium.org, jun_fang@foxitsoftware.com
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/454983003
|
|
Calling `delete` on an object of a type that has virtual functions but
not a virtual destructor is questionable: Since the object has virtual functions,
it likely has subclasses, so if it's deleted through the base pointer and the
destructor isn't virtual, the subclass destructor won't be called.
In most cases, the classes getting deleted can just be marked final to tell
the compiler that it can't possibly have subclasses (this also enables the
compiler to generate better code).
Two classes didn't have any sub- or superclasses but virtual functions -
this doesn't make sense, so make all methods of these classes non-virtual.
(Also delete an unused function on one of the two classes.)
In one case, a class actually did have a subclass that needs to be deleted
virtually, so mark one destructor as virtual.
BUG=none
R=bo_xu@foxitsoftware.com
Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/370853002
|
|
|
