------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:27 -------
You still need to declare A::~A().
That is what the following passage from that doc means:
Of course, any derived class' destructor must call the base class' destructor,
and so the destructor must still be defined (even if it's empty):
// file b.cpp
B::~B() { /* possibly empty */ }
If this definition were not supplied, you could still derive classes from B but
they could never be instantiated, which isn't particularly useful.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25826
