From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28107 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2011 18:03:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 28089 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2011 18:03:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC,TVD_RCVD_IP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 195-14-0-142.nuxit.net (HELO de558.ispfr.net) (195.14.0.142) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:03:31 +0000 Received: from ours.starynkevitch.net ([213.41.244.95] helo=glinka.lesours) by de558.ispfr.net with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RGE0f-0001XC-4w; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:03:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:48:00 -0000 From: Basile Starynkevitch To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: adding destroyable objects into Ggc Message-Id: <20111018200320.d842f5352bbdccf961125857@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20111018171201.361304028ab94f102f827bd2@starynkevitch.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00291.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:53:07 +0100 Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18 October 2011 16:12, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > > Of course, with C++, the destructor routine is really what C++ calls a destructor, e.g > > something like extern "C" void my_destructor_for_class_C (class C* p) > > { delete (p) p; // call the placement version of operator delete, from C++ library > > header. } > > Why not just call the destructor? > > p->~C() You are right. But I was also thinking of giving a C ABI to these destructors. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***