> you asked for an array of Bs, if you're not treating it as an array of > Bs it's not gonna work. Why not? If B is derived from A, there should be nothing wrong with storing pointers to B in an array of A pointers. Although, it seems that A and B would need to have virtual destructors. I didn't read the earlier part of the thread, so I don't know if that is the case here... > ...you're lying to the compiler, and then kludging around the issue. So, if B is derived from A and I do A* a = new B; am I lying to the compiler? That's what inheritance and polymorphism is all about! Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nathan Sidwell Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:44 AM To: JP Mercury Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Segfault with delete[] operator & virtually derived classes JP Mercury wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:44:07 +0000, Nathan Sidwell wrote > >>JP Mercury wrote: >> >> >>>main() { >>> A *list = new B[10]; // Allocate 10x derived, store first in A *list > Someone else made this comment too. But I am not treating 'list' like an array > of B's. For example, when I access the array I do: you asked for an array of Bs, if you're not treating it as an array of Bs it's not gonna work. > Can you see other issues I might have overlooked? Yes, you're lying to the compiler, and then kludging around the issue. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC nathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
