* Adam Nielsen: > It still makes me wonder whether GCC is reporting the correct error for > this mistake though, I would've expected a compiler error (something > along the lines of 'you can't call a pure virtual function') rather than > a linker error. Especially as GCC should be able to tell at compile > time the base constructor is calling a pure virtual function. I guess > it's treating the constructor like any other function, where this > behaviour would be permitted.
I think C++ allows for a definition for a purely abstract function (which would be called in this case).
