This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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