GC does not delete subclass

[Sean Kelly]

Matthias Thurau wrote:
> "If the objects are no longer referenced, the GC will destroy those also."
> 
> Thats exact the case: In my example the GC isn t destroying that unreferenced member.

Technically, it is.  It's just not destroying it in the collection 
immediately following the object's allocation, which isn't guaranteed 
anyway.  As I said previously, it's likely that a register still holds 
the address of this object when the allocation is triggered, because 
basically nothing happens between the object's construction and the 
collection.  In a real application, such things are unlikely occur.


Sean