This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is this a bug for gcc (2.95 and 3.1)?


On Sat, 25 May 2002, Alexandre Oliva spake:
> On May 24, 2002, Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux@microprocess.com> wrote:
> 
>> the compiler should flag your programs with an error message,
>> reporting that it's illegal to declare a destructor as pure
> 
> Err...  Care to cite the standard?  AFAIK, it's always been legal to
> declare a destructor as pure virtual, as long as it is defined
> (outside the class body) if it's actually used.

Agreed. Constructors and destructors are functions, even though they `do
not have names'.

Inded, the entire section of the standard where they are defined is
named `Special member functions', and the first line states that
constructors and destructors are in fact functions.

-- 
`There are not words enough to describe how fucked up imake is.'
                                        --- Peter da Silva


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]