* [Bug c++/42983] [c++0x] Unvirtualization of virtual destructor
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-06 10:15 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-06 12:05 ` lavock at gmail dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-06 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]
------- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 10:15 -------
Your testcase doesn't even compile:
42983.C: In function int main():
42983.C:15:15: error: cannot convert B to A* in initialization
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
Summary|[c++0x] Unvirtualzation of |[c++0x] Unvirtualization of
|virtual destructor |virtual destructor
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [c++0x] Unvirtualization of virtual destructor
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
2010-02-06 10:15 ` [Bug c++/42983] [c++0x] Unvirtualization " paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-06 12:05 ` lavock at gmail dot com
2010-02-06 20:15 ` [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: lavock at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-06 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]
------- Comment #2 from lavock at gmail dot com 2010-02-06 12:05 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Your testcase doesn't even compile:
>
> 42983.C: In function int main():
> 42983.C:15:15: error: cannot convert B to A* in initialization
>
Sorry, my mistake, i've added an extra *...
#include <iostream>
struct A {
virtual ~A() = default;
};
struct B : A {
virtual ~B() {
std::cout << "B destructor" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
B* b = new B;
A * ptrA = b;
delete ptrA;
return 0;
}
--
lavock at gmail dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
2010-02-06 10:15 ` [Bug c++/42983] [c++0x] Unvirtualization " paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-06 12:05 ` lavock at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-06 20:15 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-07 11:44 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-06 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-06 20:15 -------
Jason, can you have a look? Just in case it's a wrong code bug... Thanks in
advance.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-06 20:15 ` [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-07 11:44 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-08 12:35 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-07 11:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-07 11:43 -------
*** Bug 42992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |albrt2000 at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-07 11:44 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-08 12:35 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 12:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (15 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 12:35 -------
n3000 says "Only special member functions may be explicitly defaulted, and the
implementation shall define them as if they had implicit definitions."
An implicit destructor is not virtual.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#906 changes this
wording
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 12:35 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 12:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-08 13:49 ` lavock at gmail dot com
` (14 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-08 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-08 12:57 -------
Interesting. Thus I get Core 906 [Ready] as meaning that this snippet is just
illegal, and should be rejected, in other terms, this is an accept invalid,
right?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 12:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-08 13:49 ` lavock at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 13:56 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (13 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: lavock at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from lavock at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 13:49 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> n3000 says "Only special member functions may be explicitly defaulted, and the
> implementation shall define them as if they had implicit definitions."
>
> An implicit destructor is not virtual.
>
An implicit definition does not mean an implicit declaration.
Moreover, the norm use sometimes this syntax.
There is a thread in comp.std.c++ about this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 13:49 ` lavock at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 13:56 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 13:58 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 13:56 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Interesting. Thus I get Core 906 [Ready] as meaning that this snippet is just
> illegal, and should be rejected, in other terms, this is an accept invalid,
> right?
>
Yes, I believe 4.5.0 should reject this (but can't check if it does.)
I don't really know what 4.4.1 should do, it wasn't clear, which is why core
906 was opened to clarify it.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 13:56 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 13:58 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 14:00 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: albrt2000 at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from albrt2000 at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 13:58 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Interesting. Thus I get Core 906 [Ready] as meaning that this snippet is just
> illegal, and should be rejected, in other terms, this is an accept invalid,
> right?
>
Hi,
I'm not sure to understand your last comment (sorry I 'm not a natural english
speaker). Do you mean that virtual ~A() = default; should be an error ? If we
can not default virtual destructor, well, the feature seems less interesting.
I opened a discussion about this in comp.std.c++ (C++0x : virtual destructor
and =default) and Scott Meyers replies that this (virtual ~A() = default;)
should be correct. Those that should be a valid gcc problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 13:58 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:00 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 14:05 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 14:00 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> There is a thread in comp.std.c++ about this.
Yes, but I don't think anyone's mentioned core issue 906, which makes all the
arguments rather moot. Read that resolution, not n3000.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:00 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:05 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 14:24 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 14:04 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> I'm not sure to understand your last comment (sorry I 'm not a natural english
> speaker). Do you mean that virtual ~A() = default; should be an error ? If we
Yes. GCC implements the resolution to core issue 906
> can not default virtual destructor, well, the feature seems less interesting.
You can do it, but not on the first declaration:
struct A {
virtual ~A();
};
A::~A() = default;
I think this should be OK (but maybe not in GCC 4.4 only in 4.5)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:05 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:24 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 14:25 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: albrt2000 at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from albrt2000 at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 14:24 -------
Ok. So, gcc is conformant with the document you mentioned. I am reporting this
discussion in comp.std.c++ since it makes me think that this behaviour reduces
one of the interest of the default declaration.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:24 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:25 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 14:36 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: albrt2000 at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from albrt2000 at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 14:25 -------
>
> struct A {
> virtual ~A();
> };
>
> A::~A() = default;
>
> I think this should be OK (but maybe not in GCC 4.4 only in 4.5)
>
This already works in gcc 4.4.1 that I use.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:25 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:36 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-08 14:49 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-08 14:36 -------
Basing on Core 906, seems rather straightforward that the snippet is
ill-formed, the only problem is that neither 4.4 nor current mainline reject
it. If that's the complete analysis, the issue is pretty low priority.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:36 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-08 14:49 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 15:10 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: albrt2000 at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from albrt2000 at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 14:49 -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> Basing on Core 906, seems rather straightforward that the snippet is
> ill-formed, the only problem is that neither 4.4 nor current mainline reject
> it.
That's also should be the case for non public access :
struct A {
private : /* or protected */
~A() = default;
};
should also be illed formed according to that report.
> If that's the complete analysis, the issue is pretty low priority.
Destroying an object from a base class pointer whose destructor is not virtual
is an undefined behaviour according to the standard. I tend to think that
silently removing the virutal property when considering the default
declaration, introduces a serious bug in the code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 14:49 ` albrt2000 at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 15:10 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 15:18 ` lavock at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 15:10 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> Destroying an object from a base class pointer whose destructor is not virtual
> is an undefined behaviour according to the standard. I tend to think that
> silently removing the virutal property when considering the default
> declaration, introduces a serious bug in the code.
Yes, but you're using an experimental implementation of an incomplete
specification. Using it for serious code would be foolish, so I tend to agree
it's low priority
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 15:10 ` jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 15:18 ` lavock at gmail dot com
2010-02-08 15:28 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: lavock at gmail dot com @ 2010-02-08 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #17 from lavock at gmail dot com 2010-02-08 15:18 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Yes, but you're using an experimental implementation of an incomplete
> specification. Using it for serious code would be foolish, so I tend to agree
> it's low priority
Yes, i agree with low priority, but maybe don't mark available for this
feature, since it seems to be partially available.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 15:18 ` lavock at gmail dot com
@ 2010-02-08 15:28 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-10 21:49 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-08 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #18 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-08 15:27 -------
It is available, for sure. We are talking about trying to use the feature in a
case where the code is actually ill-formed, per a DR which is in the [Ready]
status, that is, a very advanced status, but still not fully resolved, not in
WP yet. It's just a little more than a purely diagnostic issue.
By the way, you bet, if you start fiddling very hard, you will find ill-formed
code getting through in *much* older areas, not having anything to do with
C++1x, very basic parts of C++98, yes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-08 15:28 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-10 21:49 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-10 22:00 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-17 0:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-10 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #19 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 21:48 -------
Subject: Bug 42983
Author: jason
Date: Wed Feb 10 21:48:35 2010
New Revision: 156672
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156672
Log:
PR c++/42983, core issue 906
* method.c (defaultable_fn_check): Check virtualness.
* include/std/thread (~_Impl_base): Move default out of line.
* libsupc++/nested_exception.h (~nested_exception): Likewise.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/method.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/defaulted15.C
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/defaulted9.C
trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/std/thread
trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/nested_exception.h
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/nested_exception/rethrow_if_nested.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/nested_exception/throw_with_nested.cc
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-10 21:49 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-10 22:00 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-17 0:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-10 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #20 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-10 22:00 -------
Fixed (to require defaulting outside the class) for 4.5.
--
jason at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* [Bug c++/42983] [C++0x] Defaulted virtual destructor isn't virtual
2010-02-06 7:58 [Bug c++/42983] New: [c++0x] Unvirtualzation of virtual destructor lavock at gmail dot com
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-10 22:00 ` jason at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-17 0:22 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
20 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-17 0:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #21 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-17 00:22 -------
*** Bug 43100 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Etrnls at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42983
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread