This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
- To: nathan at codesourcery dot com (Nathan Sidwell)
- Subject: Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
- From: Mike Harrold <mharrold at cas dot org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 10:04:37 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: mharrold at cas dot org (Mike Harrold), jason_merrill at redhat dot com (Jason Merrill), olaf dot dietsche--list dot gcc-patches at exmail dot de (Olaf Dietsche), gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Mike Harrold wrote:
> [Jason wrote]
> > > Because for virtual destructors, if the dynamic type of the class defines
> > > operator delete, we need to use that instead of the global one.
> > >
> > > For non-virtual destructors, as of 3.0 we won't call delete from the
> > > destructor.
> > I guess the question is why these are in the destructor?
> Huh? This discussion is getting more and more confused.
> The ABI has changed. we're not interested in fiddling with the old abi.
> The new abi is documented at http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/
> Please read that, before coming back with more ABI related questions. Also
> for this particular point please read 220.127.116.11 and 5.3.5 of the standard.
Is it available freely yet? Perhaps more of us would read it if we didn't
have to pay for it. It always struck me as rather illogical that one had
to pay for a programming standard. Naturally I retract the comment if it
is now freely available.