Re: [boost] [1.34.0beta] many, many warnings... :(

From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-05 16:13:32

Jeff Garland wrote:
> By the standard I believe it is technically undefined behavior.  But as a 
> practical matter it's defined exactly the same on all compilers -- call the 
> base class destructor.
>   
The relevant quote is in 5.3.5/3:
"In the first alternative (delete object ), if the static type of the
operand is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a
base class of the operand’s dynamic type and the static type shall have
a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined."

I really don't think that a Boost library should intentionally contain
undefined behaviour, even if the actual behaviour is very consistent
between implementations.

Sebastian Redl