C++ (missing destructor definition) — will this program link and run?\n\n#include<iostream.h>\nclass Tab {\n int x;\npublic:\n Tab();\n ~Tab();\n void Show() const;\n};\nTab::Tab() { x = 25; }\nvoid Tab::Show() const { cout << x; }\nint main(){ Tab objB; objB.Show(); return 0; }\n\nChoose the correct statement.

Introduction / Context:
This question examines the difference between declaration and definition, and the role of the linker. A destructor is declared but not defined. Will the program build successfully when an automatic object is created and then destroyed at scope end?

Given Data / Assumptions:

• ~Tab() is declared but has no out-of-class definition.
• An automatic object objB is created in main, so its destructor must be generated/linked.
• Other members (constructor and Show) are defined.

Concept / Approach:
Because ~Tab() is odr-used (it must be called at scope exit), the linker requires a definition. Absent an inline defaulted definition or compiler-generated implicit destructor (suppressed by the user-declared one), the program fails to link, commonly reported as a “unresolved external symbol ~Tab”. Many toolchains surface this as a build-time (compile/link) failure.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Provide a trivial definition ~Tab(){}; and the program will link and run, printing 25.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Printing 25 requires a successful link.
• “Runtime error” cannot occur because the program never executes.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming the compiler will synthesize a destructor despite a user-declared (but undefined) one.

Final Answer:
The program will report compile time error.