longjmp is what the library and standards writers refer to as a "non-local goto" so it's kind of to be expected that it would manage to bypass destructors (I'm not sure how you'd unwind the stack enough to ensure that you've destructed everything created since the corresponding setjmp).
It's not terribly surprising, but it is worth noting since one use of setjmp/longjmp is to implement exceptions, and one would expect (and desire) destructors to run when unwinding on exceptions.
Comments
longjmp is what the library and standards writers refer to as a "non-local goto" so it's kind of to be expected that it would manage to bypass destructors (I'm not sure how you'd unwind the stack enough to ensure that you've destructed everything created since the corresponding setjmp).
It's not terribly surprising, but it is worth noting since one use of setjmp/longjmp is to implement exceptions, and one would expect (and desire) destructors to run when unwinding on exceptions.