This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@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: inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deletingdestructor

From: Eljay Love-Jensen <eljay at adobe dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>, gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 11:24:57 -0500
Subject: Re: inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deletingdestructor
References: <40A0CE15.8F3CA05D@st.com><6.0.3.0.2.20040511104933.01fedea8@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com><20040511161048.GA19620@compsoc.man.ac.uk>

Hi Jon,

>That's [(void) for the destructor] a matter of style, they mean the same thing and are equally valid.

I believe that is incorrect*, and that they are explicitly invalid for destructors and default constructors.

They are optional for other member methods, and typically in C++ are omitted.

>Again, both [<stdio.h> and <cstdio>] are valid.

I believe that is incorrect*. In C the header file is <stdio.h>, whereas in C++ <cstdio> is the header file.

Sincerely,
--Eljay

* I may be mistaken. I'd have to review the ISO 14882 spec to be sure.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deleting destructor
  - From: llewelly

References:
- inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deleting destructor
  - From: Christian BRUEL
- Re: inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deletingdestructor
  - From: Eljay Love-Jensen
- Re: inline operator delete redefinition and in-charge deleting destructor
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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