--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-28
17:13 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-28
17:01 ---
Subject: Bug 15214
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-05-28 17:01:21
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog class.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-11 19:23
---
Ah, ok. Basically what you do is to mark the class "final", i.e. no
other class can derive from it. I think your claim then makes sense.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15214
---
--- Additional Comments From tmarshall at real dot com 2004-05-11 19:03
---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I don't quite understand the usefulness of the construct you want the
> compiler to accept: if the destructor can't be called from a derived
> class, then you can derive from this c
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-11 18:53
---
I don't quite understand the usefulness of the construct you want the
compiler to accept: if the destructor can't be called from a derived
class, then you can derive from this class. Why would you want to ha
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15214
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-05-11 18:38
---
A patch was submitted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-05/msg00599.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15214
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on t
7 matches
Mail list logo
