Re: this newsroup
"Liviu" <lab2k1@gmail.c0m> wrote in message
news:rcCdp.457029$Ph5.421768@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
"Paul" <pchristor@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
"Liviu" <lab2k1@gmail.c0m> wrote...
The code was proved to be well defined,
"If the object will be or was of a nonPOD
class type, the program has
undefined behavior if:
- the pointer is used to access a nonstatic
data member or call a nonstatic
member function of the object,"
Yes, so what?
So what!!!! So it fuckin proves your code was WRONG.
There is no nsmf call on 'this' after the destructor.
For your convenience, here is the abridged core code again.
The code below is totally different from your original code.
void A::f(int n)
{
if(n)
{
this->~A();
A *that = (n % 3) ? new(this) A : new(this) B;
that->f(n - 1);
If 'that' is a B, a completely different function is called.
}
}
What is this supposed to prove? This certainly isn't recurrence.
And what happens if a new B is allocated?
Suddenly you have a vtable scenario. The original obect was stored on the
stack and now your stack is corrupted because you overwritten the object
with a different type object.
A a; /*no vtable*/
A* that = new(&a) B; /*very bad, vtables and diff objects*/
class1::f();
class2::f();
The above are not the same function.
Please come to terms with reality.