--- 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
--- 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?
--
--- 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, no?
--- 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() =
--- 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 code
--- 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,
--- 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 usefulness
