Possible false negative

[João M. S. Silva]

Hi,
Is it possible that a memory leak was occurring because of a missing virtual destructor?
virtual ~ClassName() {}
If the default behaviour of the virtual destructor prevents the leak, why didn't cppcheck warn about it?
Thanks.

[Daniel Marjamäki]

could you show a minimal example code where there is a leak and we do not warn?

[João M. S. Silva]

Not sure. Does this help?

"It's not a new/delete - the ClassName code uses smart pointers

I suspected we were passing around a std::shared_ptr<namespace::classname> </namespace::classname>

Which actually pointed to a derived builder and the lack of virtual destructor on ClassName meant the derived destructor wasn't called when the shared pointer went out of scope"

[João M. S. Silva]

Is this enough or must I really provide an example?

[Daniel Marjamäki]

I managed to put together an example. And created this ticket:
https://trac.cppcheck.net/ticket/9947

[João M. S. Silva]

Many thanks.