Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi

No specific destructor doesn't means no code generated, as we can see, two
OUString could be leaked by not executing SfxListUndoAction destructor.
Also an issue for me.



2013/12/7 julien2412 <serval2412@yahoo.fr>

Similarly, there's CID#708952 (see

https://scan5.coverity.com:8443/reports.htm#v22002/p10276/fileInstanceId=47973599&defectInstanceId=14481123&mergedDefectId=708952
).
Here, there's no consequence, since there's no specific destructor in
SfxListUndoAction. But if there's one in the future, it won't be taken into
account since destructor of SfxUndoArray isn't virtual
(see http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/include/svl/undo.hxx#136)



--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LO-scan-coverity-708945-non-virtual-destructor-in-parent-class-tp4087082p4087118.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice




-- 
Arnaud Versini

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.