Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #2534Re: Virtual functions and destructors
From: John Max Skaller
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 22:55
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 22:55
33 lines
1524 bytes
1524 bytes
martelli@cadlab.it (Alex Martelli) wrote: > >parker@WPI.EDU (Chris Parker) writes: > ... >If that subclass is destroyed through a pointer to an ancestor whose >dtor isn't virtual, undefined behaviour (violation of a "shall"). No no! Undefined behaviour is NOT a violation. Conformance applies to COMPILERS. When behaviour is not defined, the compiler can produce code that does anything, because there is no requirement to satisfy. So it's exactly the opposite of what you said: where behaviour is undefined is the one place it is IMPOSSIBLE for a "shall" to be violated, because there isn't one :-) -- John Max Skaller voice: 61-2-566-2189 81 Glebe Point Rd fax: 61-2-660-0850 GLEBE NSW 2037 email: maxtal@suphys.physics.oz.au AUSTRALIA email: skaller@maxtal.com.au --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu. Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<480ksh$9lb@oznet03.ozemail.com.au>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!mattReferences:
<47r71q$cp0@bigboote.WPI.EDU> <martelli.815930692@cadlab>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt From: John Max Skaller <maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au> Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Virtual functions and destructors Date: 10 Nov 1995 22:55:36 GMT Organization: MAXTAL Approved: matt@physics2.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) Message-ID: <480ksh$9lb@oznet03.ozemail.com.au> References: <47r71q$cp0@bigboote.WPI.EDU> <martelli.815930692@cadlab> NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu