From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30081 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2004 14:46:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30073 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2004 14:46:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp-relay-7.sea.adobe.com) (192.150.22.7) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2004 14:46:29 -0000 Received: from inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (inner-relay-3 [153.32.251.51]) by smtp-relay-7.sea.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2AEkOSP002456; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:46:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from iplan-mn (iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com [130.248.25.5]) by inner-relay-3.corp.adobe.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i2AEkCkq025372; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:46:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mn-eljayet.adobe.com ([130.248.178.9]) by iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Aug 19 2002)) with ESMTP id <0HUD002IX7OYMZ@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:46:12 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:23:00 -0000 From: Eljay Love-Jensen Subject: Re: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called! In-reply-to: <3F6F4712B759A34ABD453A8B39C10D6201F2C888@bagman.edm.com> X-Sender: eljay@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com To: "Assinovsky, Lev" , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Message-id: <6.0.3.0.2.20040310084202.01f41830@iplan-mn.corp.adobe.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3F6F4712B759A34ABD453A8B39C10D6201F2C888@bagman.edm.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 Hi Lev, I notice that if the throw(int) specification is taken off the Raiser constructor, then the ~Object() is called with -O3. (I'm using GCC 3.3.1 on CygWin / Windows XP.) Very odd. Good catch. Have you filed a bug? BTW, in general, I've found that it's usually best NOT to put in throw specifications for functions / methods. Ever. (This restriction does not apply to putting in the "throw() -- I throw nothing, ever" specification. But even that should be used with great caution.) If C++ did exception specifications like how Java does them, then that'd be a different story. --Eljay