From: bouncer@dev.null   
      
   Pete Becker wrote:   
      
   > On 2012-03-06 06:15:41 +0000, rockeet said:   
   >   
   >> By standard, delete a pointer of incomplete type is not an error, it's   
   >> just a warning.   
   >   
   > The standard does not distinguish "error" from "warning". If code is   
   > ill-formed, it requires "a diagnostic". It is implementation-defined   
   > what constitutes a diagnostic. And after issuing a diagnostic, the   
   > implementation is free to do whatever the implementor decided,   
   > including carrying on with some implementation-specific behavior.   
   > The standard also does not prohibit issuing a diagnostic on valid   
   > code.   
      
   Sure, but in this case (a delete-expression on a pointer to an   
   incomplete type) the standard doesn't say the code is ill-formed.   
   Therefore, an implementation is not required to issue a diagnostic,   
   although, as you say, it is free to do so.   
      
   A more interesting question is whether, in this case, a conforming   
   implementation is allowed to refuse to compile the code.  I think the   
   answer is no, unless the complete class of the object being deleted   
   has a non-trivial destructor or a deallocation function (that's   
   undefined behaviour, which allows the compiler to do anything).   
      
   And that's where the problem is: the type is incomplete, so in all   
   likelihood, the compiler just doesn't know.  All it can do is warn   
   about of a case of *possibly* undefined behaviour.   
      
   Regards,   
      
   - Wil   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)