Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-29 06:31:29

> I assume the current definition of ~d1() is because some compilers
> generate an implicit destructor with a non-empty
> exception-specification, which then causes an error? I'm wondering if
> we wouldn't be better off just defining ~d1 for those compilers, since
> many other compilers are likely to raise the same warning as above.

Yep, it's a bit of a mess, but if I remember correctly the explicit
destructor was required VC6/7 and those other compilers that use the same
ABI, in order to ensure that they did the right thing with classes with
virtual bases, but otherwise no virtual functions themselves (the iostream
classes for example). I guess all we can really do is patch this on a case
by case basis depending upon the compilers ABI :-(

John Maddock

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at