Re: LO, scan coverity 708945 (non virtual destructor in parent class)

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