🚀 go-pugleaf

tim@franck.Princeton.EDU (Tim Hollebeek) wrote:

>Is the following legal C++ code?  g++ compiles it, but it doesn't link
>(undefined function Foo::foo()).  I'm suprised it compiles at all:

>class Foo {
>public:
>    virtual int foo() = 0;
>};

>class Bar : public Foo {
>public:
>    int foo() { return Foo::foo(); }
>};

>int main() {
>    Bar bar;
>    bar.foo();
>}

I suspect that this is perfectly legal C++ code. Every statement taken
individually is correct. But even if it linked, the net effect of
calling bar.foo() would be to attempt to activate a pure virtual
function (In Borland C++ this generates a RTL program halt - it says
'pure virtual function called'.)

The statement/function 

>    int foo() { return Foo::foo(); }

refers to Foo::foo() which is inherently not defined. Hence the link
error.

- Don


[ To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader.  If that fails,
		      use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  FAQ:    http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]