Five conditions must be true to get that bug:
1. Method throwing exception must have an exception specifier.
2-4. Method calling the method above must be VIRTUAL, must not have an exception specifier and
must be called through base class pointer or reference.
5. Compile with option -On, n > 0.
----
Lev Assinovsky
Aelita Software Corporation
O&S InTrust Framework Division, Team Leader
ICQ# 165072909
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Wetmore [mailto:tony.wetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:23 PM
> To: 'Eljay Love-Jensen'; Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
>
>
> Interestingly, ~Object() is also called if you ADD a "throw(int)"
> specifier to the FromBase::Run() method that invokes the Raiser
> constructor. Tested on Linux with GCC 3.3.1.
>
> ---
> Tony Wetmore
> Raytheon Solipsys
> mailto:tony.wetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.solipsys.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Eljay Love-Jensen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: Assinovsky, Lev; gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Great g++ bug! Local destructor isn't called!
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
