This one made me think:
class X;
void foo(X* p)
{
delete p;
}
How can we possibly delete p
if we do not even know whether
It is undefined behavior.
However, you can make the compiler check for incomplete types, like boost:
// verify that types are complete for increased safety
template<class T> inline void checked_delete(T * x)
{
// intentionally complex - simplification causes regressions
typedef char type_must_be_complete[ sizeof(T)? 1: -1 ];
(void) sizeof(type_must_be_complete);
delete x;
}
Applying sizeof
to an incomplete type should trigger an error, and I suppose if that passes with some compiler, then an array of negative size would trigger an error.
From the standard [expr.delete]:
If the object being deleted has incomplete class type at the point of deletion and the complete class has a non-trivial destructor or a deallocation function, the behavior is undefined.
So, it's UB if there's nontrivial stuff to do, and it's ok if there isn't. Warnings aren't neccessary for UB.
It is undefined behaviour, and a common gotcha when implementing the pImpl pattern. To the best of my knowledge, there is simply no such thing as a warning that the compiler is required to emit. Warnings are elective; they're there because the compiler writer thought they would be useful.