Constructor and Destructors in C++ [Not a question] [closed]
- by Jack
I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong -
Lets say I have two classes A & B
class A
{
public:
A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;}
~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;}
};
class B:public A
{
public:
B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;}
~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;}
};
1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way?
2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph)
3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land.
Please comment.
