Is there any point in using 'override' on destructors? There is no function signature to trigger the usual warning case (derived class defines a function with a different signature, so not really replacing the base class virtual), so there is no way a destructor can be written to not override. The compiler doesn't consider destructors in its override warning.
The only way in which 'override' would be useful on a destructor would be to give an error if the base class destructor was not declared virtual, but with a correctly written base class this should not arise.
Sorry for getting more off-topic, but /me wants to clarify this:
Right, and why not protect against this? I think adding an override to dtors makes a lot of sense. Especially if you think of override as of: "I expect there to exist a base class version of this function which is declared virtual".
Also see discussion on qt-development: https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2018-August/033437.html