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]

Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?

To: Sam TH <sam at uchicago dot edu>
Subject: Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
From: Olaf Dietsche <olaf dot dietsche at gmx dot net>
Date: 02 May 2001 01:30:01 +0200
Cc: Mike Harrold <mharrold at cas dot org>, Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason_merrill at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <3AEEBE6B.32A59B6@codesourcery.com><200105011404.KAA11363@mah21awu.cas.org><20010501092504.A3435@uchicago.edu>

Sam TH <sam@uchicago.edu> writes:

> > > Please read that, before coming back with more ABI related questions. Also
> > > for this particular point please read 3.7.3.2 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.
> 
> Well, it certainly appears to be freely available.

It (the ABI) certainly appears to be freely available, but the 
_C++_ standard isn't AFAIK (see the comp.std.c++ FAQ). But, there is
still <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/open/n2356/> available.

Regards, Olaf.

References:
- Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
  - From: Mike Harrold
- Re: C++: why implicit delete in destructor?
  - From: Sam TH

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