In article <lad1dsk9dcse7s61tkjh3rpedbs6iaiqv3@4ax.com>, Daniel Jones
<ddjonesNOSPAM@speakeasy.org> writes
>Is this standard behavior or a peculiarity of the compiler?
>If standard, how and why does the presence of a declared
>destructor affect the calling of the copy constructor?

AFAICS the compiler has an option as to whether it calls the copy ctor.
Who can read the minds of the compiler implementor who wrote the code
that made the decision? It never needs to generate a call to an
accessible copy ctor in this kind of case but it is not prohibited from
doing so.

Francis Glassborow      Journal Editor, Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA          +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]