------- Comment #1 from herwig at gdsys dot de 2008-03-31 06:41 ------- Hi yuri,
I think, this is perfectly correct code and GCC is right in accepting it. First of all, see "Effective C++" issue 14 about the pure virtual destructor. Then see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_function#Abstract_classes_and_pure_virtual_functions <cite> Although pure virtual methods typically have no implementation in the class that declares them, pure virtual methods in C++ are permitted to contain an implementation in their declaring class, providing fallback or default behaviour that a derived class can delegate to if appropriate. </cite> Regards, Björn Herwig (In reply to comment #0) > GCC compiles the code below without any error: > > //---------------------------------- > class A { > protected: > virtual void foo() const = 0; > }; > > // Defining pure virtual functions should not be allowed. > void A::foo() const > { > } > //---------------------------------- > -- herwig at gdsys dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |herwig at gdsys dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35772
