记录codeblock的坑，暂时不用了...

同样的代码：

test.h:

#ifndef TEST_H
#define TEST_H

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class Employee
{
public:
    Employee();
    virtual ~Employee();
};

class Singer : public Employee
{
public:
    Singer();
    ~Singer();
};


#endif // TEST_H

test.cpp:

#include "test.h"


Employee::Employee()
{
    cout << "Employee::Employee()" << endl;
}

Employee::~Employee()
{
    cout << "Employee::~Employee()" << endl;
}

Singer::Singer()
{
    cout << "Singer::Singer()" << endl;
}

Singer::~Singer()
{
    cout << "Singer::~Singer()" << endl;
}

main.cpp:

#include <iostream>

#include "test.h"

using namespace std;

int main()
{
    cout << "Hello world!" << endl;

    Employee *pe = new Singer;

    delete pe;

    return 0;
}

上面的例子用来验证：当用父类指针指向子类对象，删除父类指针时，析构函数的执行顺序的；

codeblock直接把：~Singer()函数给吃了...

指不定后面又遇到什么坑，暂时不用了...