RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!

["Assinovsky, Lev" <LAssinovsky at algorithm dot aelita dot com>]

Five conditions must be true to get that bug:
1. Method throwing exception must have an exception specifier.
2-4. Method calling the method above must be VIRTUAL, must not  have an exception specifier and
     must be called through base class pointer or reference.
5. Compile with option -On,  n > 0.

----
Lev Assinovsky
Aelita Software Corporation
O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
ICQ# 165072909


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Wetmore [mailto:tony.wetmore@solipsys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:23 PM
> To: 'Eljay Love-Jensen'; Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
> 
> 
> Interestingly, ~Object() is also called if you ADD a "throw(int)"
> specifier to the FromBase::Run() method that invokes the Raiser
> constructor.  Tested on Linux with GCC 3.3.1.
> 
> ---
> Tony Wetmore
> Raytheon Solipsys
> mailto:tony.wetmore@solipsys.com
> http://www.solipsys.com
>  
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org 
> [mailto:gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Eljay Love-Jensen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
> 
> 
> Hi Lev,
> 
> I notice that if the throw(int) specification is taken off the Raiser 
> constructor, then the ~Object() is called with -O3.
> 
> (I'm using GCC 3.3.1 on CygWin / Windows XP.)
> 
> Very odd.  Good catch.  Have you filed a bug?
> 
> BTW, in general, I've found that it's usually best NOT to put 
> in throw 
> specifications for functions / methods.  Ever.  (This restriction does
> not 
> apply to putting in the "throw() -- I throw nothing, ever" 
> specification.  But even that should be used with great caution.)
> 
> If C++ did exception specifications like how Java does them, 
> then that'd
> be 
> a different story.
> 
> --Eljay
> 
> 
>