Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Authentication-Warning: finisterre.office.alphawave.net: da set sender to da AT alphawave DOT net using -f
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:34:45 +0000
From: David Acton <da AT alphawave DOT net>
To: Andrews Harold G Maj USAFA/DFCS <Harold DOT Andrews AT usafa DOT af DOT mil>
Cc: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: gcc bug - temporary objects not destroyed properly
Message-ID: <20011009203445.A2721@alphawave.net>
References: <9BBB0C9AF506D311A68E00902745A53703CC798D AT fsxqpz04 DOT usafa DOT af DOT mil>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <9BBB0C9AF506D311A68E00902745A53703CC798D@fsxqpz04.usafa.af.mil>; from Harold.Andrews@usafa.af.mil on Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:55:25AM -0600

Hi Andy,

> I've seen something similar with gcc 2.95 under Cygwin.  The main difference
> was that I had at least one virtual method in my class.  The compiler (using
> the -Wall option) mentioned that I should declare a *virtual* destructor.

Yes, I always compile with -Wall -pedantic and it complains vigorously if
you don't accompany virtual functions with a virtual destructor!

> The one I created was was essentially empty, and seemed to fix the problem
> (though I'm not completely certain why that was).  This might be something
> that could fix your problem if you want to continue using GCC 2.95.x

Yes, thanks - I'll give it a go. The actual class that caused the original
problem is one of the few in our application without any virtuality so that
might well be significant.

> BTW, I was not able to repeat the error using GCC 3.0.1 (though there were
> some simple-to-fix compiler errors).  You might want to consider upgrading.

I did install 3.0.1 and got my code to compile okay with it. But we went back
to 2.95 becaues 3.0.1 seems soooo slow at C++ (and 2.96 so dodgy! :-) It's
another good thing to try though.

Cheers

-- 
David Acton
Alphawave Ltd

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/