------- Comment #16 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 15:10 ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Destroying an object from a base class pointer whose destructor is not virtual > is an undefined behaviour according to the standard. I tend to think that > silently removing the virutal property when considering the default > declaration, introduces a serious bug in the code.
Yes, but you're using an experimental implementation of an incomplete specification. Using it for serious code would be foolish, so I tend to agree it's low priority -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
