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

[Arnaud Versini]

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 at 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 at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
>



-- 
Arnaud Versini
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20131208/07e3bdd9/attachment.html>