destructor

How can i simulate an OnDestroy event for a TFrame in Delphi? i nievely added a constructor and destructor to my frame, thinking that is what TForm does: TframeEditCustomer = class(TFrame) ... public constructor Create(AOwner: TComponent); override; destructor Destroy; override; ... end; constructor TframeEditCustomer.Create(AOwner: TComponent) begin inherited Create(AOwner); //allocate stuff end; destructor TframeEditCustomer.Destroy; begin //cleanup stuff inherited Destroy; end; The problem with this is that by the time my destructor runs, controls on the frame have been destroyed and are no

Comeau, g++ ( ideone ) and EDG accept the following code without diagnostic. Visual C++ compiles successfully, albeit with warning C4624. class indestructible_base { ~indestructible_base(); }; class T : indestructible_base { public: //T() {} }; int main(void) { new T(); } Uncomment the constructor and it no longer compiles. Perhaps it's the rule that if an exception occurs inside the constructor, subobjects must be destroyed? Seems odd, since the body is empty and can't cause an exception. Even so, add an exception-specification vouching for the fact that no exception will be thrown ( throw()

class Widget { public: Widget() { cout<<"~Widget()"<<endl; } ~Widget() { cout<<"~Widget()"<<endl; } void* operator new(size_t sz) throw(bad_alloc) { cout<<"operator new"<<endl; throw bad_alloc(); } void operator delete(void *v) { cout<<"operator delete"<<endl; } }; int main() { Widget* w = 0; try { w = new Widget(); } catch(bad_alloc) { cout<<"Out of Memory"<<endl; } delete w; getch(); return 1; } In this code, delete w does not call the overloaded delete operator when the destructor is there. If the destructor is omitted, the overloaded delete is called. Why is this so? Output when ~Widget()

After compiling of c++ file (with global static object) I get in nm output this function: 00000000 t _Z41__static_initialization_and_destruction_0ii __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) /* after c++filt */ What is it? It will call __cxa_atexit() Can I disable generation of this function (and calling a __cxa_atexit() ) and put all constructor and destructor calls to .ctors and .dtors sections? This doc file seems to tell ya all you'd wanna know about those functions: http://www.nsnam.org/docs/linker-problems.doc From what I can grok, gcc creates a __static_initialization_and

This question already has an answer here: Is Big-O of the C++ statement 'delete [] Q;' O(1) or O(n)? 2 answers What is the Time Complexity of the delete[] operator? I mean how is it implemented - does it iterate over all the elements in the array and calls destructor for every element? Does this operator do the same for primitive types ( int , etc.) and user defined types? Basile Starynkevitch ::operator delete[] is documented on cplusplus.com (which is sometimes frowned upon) as: operator delete[] can be called explicitly as a regular function, but in C++, delete[] is an operator with a very

Closed . This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers. Learn more . Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post . Java has its own garbage collection implementation so it does not require any destructor like C++ . This makes Java developer lazy in implementing memory management. Still we can have destructor along with garbage collector where developer can free resources and which can save garbage collector's work. This might improves the performance of application. Why does Java not provide any

I remember reading in one of the C++ books (quite some time ago) that it is not a good idea to have inline Constructors and Destructors especially for derived class. I understand that inlining would induce some bloating up of object code but are there any other design considerations that discourage inline constructors and destructors? Of course most compilers may reject the inline and proceed with creating a function body but if they were to inline what penalty might one have to pay? The compiler is free to inline code that you have not declared inline, and is free not to inline code that you