implicit destructors and assignment operators (C++)

[Nathan Sidwell]

"Simpson, Kenny" wrote:
> The first problem is that the excpetion specs for virtual destructors seems
> to be ignored.
> The first example is almost straight from an example in the Standard.
this is a known bug, we don't generate the correct exception specs for synthesized
methods -- so can't check 'em either. [well known to us, I don't think we
document it anywhere other than the compiler source :-(]

>   The second problem is that the wrong operator= seems the be generated, and
> even the generated
> operator= has very odd behavior.  The dangerous problem is that a non-const
> operator= is called
> in the base, when a const operator= is invoked on the derived class.
>   The resulting implicit operator= seems to be something like:
Yup, I believe I fixed this last night (bug 91) -- let me know if an updated
compiler fails to fix this part of your report.

nathan
-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org