Re: in-charge versus not-in-charge

[Paul Pluzhnikov]

Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@knuut.de> writes:

> Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>> It's an internal impelementation detail ...
>
> I'd be interested to know anyways, you don't have a link handy, do you?

This comment in gcc-4.1-20051022/gcc/cp/decl2.c explains:

/* Constructors for types with virtual baseclasses need an "in-charge" flag
   saying whether this constructor is responsible for initialization of
   virtual baseclasses or not.  All destructors also need this "in-charge"
   flag, which additionally determines whether or not the destructor should
   free the memory for the object.
   ...

Cheers,
-- 
In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.
Remove /-nsp/ for email.