No, destructors are called automatically in the reverse order of construction. (Base classes last). Do not call base class destructors.
More Related Contents:
- C++ – destructors [closed]
- If you shouldn’t throw exceptions in a destructor, how do you handle errors in it?
- C++: Life span of temporary arguments?
- Pure virtual destructor in C++
- Why do we need a pure virtual destructor in C++?
- Does C++ call destructors for global and class static variables?
- Why is the destructor of the class called twice?
- What is the use of having destructor as private?
- When is a C++ destructor called?
- GNU GCC (g++): Why does it generate multiple dtors?
- Forward declaration with unique_ptr? [duplicate]
- Does delete on a pointer to a subclass call the base class destructor?
- Destructors of builtin types (int, char etc..)
- Why don’t STL containers have virtual destructors?
- Destructor being called twice when being explicitly invoked
- Is destructor called if SIGINT or SIGSTP issued?
- What destructors are run when the constructor throws an exception?
- C++ local variable destruction order
- Will exit() or an exception prevent an end-of-scope destructor from being called?
- How to add constructors/destructors to an unnamed class?
- Pseudo-destructor call does not destroy an object
- How is it possible (if it is) to implement shared_ptr without requiring polymorphic classes to have virtual destructor?
- Why destructor is not called on exception?
- problems with Move constructor and Move overloaded assignment operator?
- Why does destructor disable generation of implicit move methods?
- Lifetime of object is over before destructor is called?
- Under what circumstances are C++ destructors not going to be called?
- Are destructors run when calling exit()? [duplicate]
- Observable behavior and undefined behavior — What happens if I don’t call a destructor?
- C++ Constructor/Destructor inheritance