[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #7 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 22:00 --- Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure "lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure virtual destructor has, the useful

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #6 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 21:39 --- Thank you for the reference Gaby. I'm now not quite sure what purpose a pure virtual destructor has, or why it should be legal, but neither the apparent language oddity nor my confusion about same is a GCC problem, so...

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #5 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:12 --- Subject: Re: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure "lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity | of the c

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu
--- Comment #4 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2006-01-17 21:11 --- Subject: Re: New: "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure "lloyd at randombit dot net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | The following code: | | class A |{ |public: | virtual ~A(

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 19:33 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the > code > reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low > priority, but still a bug, n

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread lloyd at randombit dot net
--- Comment #2 from lloyd at randombit dot net 2006-01-17 19:32 --- Ah, I misread it, but the bug should stay open IMO - the invalidity of the code reduces it to "GCC doesn't reject invalid code", which is obviously a low priority, but still a bug, no? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug c++/25826] "pure virtual" destructors accepted by GCC, but cause link failure

2006-01-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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