[omniORB] Trouble building OmniOrb 4.1.4 on Linux

[Igor Polonsky]

Duncan, thanks for your reply.

Yeah, it makes sense to me.  And I've since learnt that older versions of gcc will issue such warnings even if the non-virtual destructor is protected.

BTW, I've since been able to port our CORBA clients to Linux/OmniORB.  The resulting app seems to works fine.  It interoperates well with our ancient naming service.  I haven't done any large-scale tests yet, but I'm optimistic.  In our client apps, only one thread at a time is allowed to use CORBA.  I think that's a relatively easy use case.

So far, I am very much impressed with your product.  Kudos to you and everybody else who's contributed to it!

Igor


--- On Thu, 5/6/10, Duncan Grisby <duncan at grisby.org> wrote:

> From: Duncan Grisby <duncan at grisby.org>
> Subject: RE: [omniORB] Trouble building OmniOrb 4.1.4 on Linux
> To: "Igor Polonsky" <polonsig at yahoo.com>
> Cc: omniorb-list at omniorb-support.com
> Date: Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:14 AM
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 20:25 -0700,
> Igor Polonsky wrote:
> 
> > Another question: I see quite a few compiler warning
> in the output
> >  produced by make.  I think that's Ok for a
> large and dynamic project. 
> >  But some of the warnings are of a kind that I
> personally try hard to
> >  avoid:
> > 
> >
> ../../../../../omniORB-4.1.4/include/omniORB4/internal/initialiser.h:66:
> > warning: 'class omni::omniInitialiser' has virtual
> functions but non-virtual destructor
> 
> All the things it is warning about are either statically
> constructed or
> constructed on the stack. They are therefore always deleted
> by most
> derived class, and there is no problem with them having
> non-virtual
> destructors.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Duncan.
> 
> -- 
>  -- Duncan Grisby         --
>   -- duncan at grisby.org 
>    --
>    -- http://www.grisby.org --
> 
> 
>