Actually I am thinking about trivially destructible objects, not only about POD (I am not sure POD can have base class).
When I read this explanation for is_trivially_destructible from cppreference I notice this:
Storage occupied by trivially destructible objects may be reused without calling the destructor.
So, it is safe to do that:
struct A {
int a;
};
struct B : A {
int b;
};
int main() {
A* a = new B;
delete a;
}
B::~B()
won't be called - and AFAIK (please correct if I am wrong) the entire memory will be freed. And B::~B()
for sure is trivial.
I know this code smells badly, but my question is only about safeness of this code...
No, this is not allowed. [expr.delete]/p3, emphasis mine:
In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the dynamic type of the object to be deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined.
In fact, the committee fairly recently rejected a proposal to make deleting a POD via a pointer-to-base well-defined.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With