This question already has an answer here:
method in the derived class got executed without a *virtual* keyword in the referred class
(1 answer)
Closed 2 years ago.
Probably, i misunderstood c++ polymorphism(virtual function).
Please point me what i miss.
the source code is below
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class A {
public:
virtual void print(void) {
cout<<"class A"<<endl;
}
};
class B : public A {
public:
void print(void) {
cout<<"class B"<<endl;
}
};
class C : public B {
public:
void print(void) {
cout<<"class C"<<endl;
}
};
int main() {
A a;
B b;
C c;
A *pAa = &a;
A *pAb = &b;
A *pAc = &c;
B *pBc = &c;
pAa->print();
pAb->print();
pAc->print();
pBc->print(); // shouldn't be "class B"
return 0;
}
result
------------------------------
class A
class B
class C
class C // shouldn't be "class B"
my understanding is that
the last print statement should print "class B"
because pBc is a pointer of class B and the print function in class B is non virtual member function. i could not find the answer about this situation.
please tell me why or point me where i can find the answer and
understand c++ polymorphism in comprehension.
thanks.
If a function with a given signature is declared as virtual in a top-level base class, then the function is virtual in all derived classes no matter if it is marked with the keyword virtual (override, final) or not:
virtual function specifier
Then this function in the class Derived is also virtual (whether or not the keyword virtual is used in its declaration)
struct Base {
// Pure virtual function.
virtual void foo() const = 0;
};
struct A : public Base {
// Overriding virtual function, even if it
// is not marked as virtual (override, or final).
void foo() const {}
};
In A, adding the virtual specifier to foo() would only bring semantic value; it will be no functional difference whether virtual is omitted or not (unless someone changes the interface in Base).
Many static analyzers enforce(1) marking derived virtual functions with override or final, for two reasons:
semantics; clearly showing the given function is a virtual function (as per being defined so higher up in the inheritance chain), and
enforcement; if a function is marked as override and final but is not actually an overriding function, you will get a compiler error, which can be particularly useful to protect against mistakes when changing a base class interface (whilst forgetting which classes that actually implements this interface).
E.g.:
struct Base {
// Pure virtual function.
virtual void foo() const = 0;
};
struct A : public Base {
// Overriding virtual function.
void foo() const override {}
};
struct B final : public Base {
// Overriding (final) virtual function.
void foo() const final {}
// Error: Function does not override.
// void bar() const override {}
};
(1) E.g. Rule A10-3-1 in the Autsar C++14 Language Guidelines (safety-critical development in automotive) is categorized as a required rule: Virtual function declaration shall contain exactly one of the three specifiers:(1) virtual, (2) override, (3) final.
the print function in class B is non virtual member function
No. Since A::print is marked as virtual and B inherits from A, then B::print is virtual too; regardless of the keywork virtual is specified on it or not.
(emphasis mine)
If some member function vf is declared as virtual in a class Base, and
some class Derived, which is derived, directly or indirectly, from
Base, has a declaration for member function with the same
name
parameter type list (but not the return type)
cv-qualifiers
ref-qualifiers
Then this function in the class Derived is also virtual (whether or not the keyword virtual is used in its declaration) and overrides Base::vf (whether or not the word override is used in its declaration).
Related
class Base {
public:
virtual void f();
void f(int);
virtual ~Base();
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void f();
};
int main()
{
Derived *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->f(1);
delete ptr;
return 0;
}
ptr->f(1); is showing the following error: "too many arguments in function call".
Why is this isn't possible? isn't derived inherited all the functions form base and is free to use any of them?
I could call it explicitly and it would work but why isn't this allowed?
What you are seeing is called hiding.
When you override the function void f() in the Derived class, you hide all other variants of the f function in the Base class.
You can solve this with the using keyword:
class Derived : public Base {
public:
using Base::f; // Pull all `f` symbols from the base class into the scope of this class
void f() override; // Override the non-argument version
};
As mentioned by #Some Programming Dude : it is because of Hiding.
To understand hiding in relatively simpler language
Inheritance is meant to bring Baseclass variables / functions in Derived class.
But, on 1 condition : "If its not already available in Derived Class"
Since f() is already available in Derived, it doesn't make sense to look at Base class from compiler perspective.
That's the precise reason why you need to scope clarify while calling this function
void main()
{
Derived *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->Base::f(1);
delete ptr;
}
Suppose for time being that Derived do have the access to the function void Base::f(int);. Then it will be a case of function overloading. But, this is invalid case of function overloading since one function f(int);is in Base and other function f(); is in Derived. Function Overloading happens inside a single class. Function Overriding happens across classes. The example you posted is a case of Name Hiding in Inheritance
"Derived *ptr" This definition will only allow "ptr" to access all the member functions which are defined via Derived class or its child class. But, it will not allow u to access the member functions which are coming in Derived class because of inheritance.
If u want to access base class version of function "f" then use "Base *ptr" and it will choose the correct version of function automatically as shown :)
class Base {
public:
virtual void f()
{
cout<<"Here 2"<<endl;
}
void f(int x)
{
cout<<"Here 1"<<endl;
}
virtual ~Base() {}
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
void f()
{
cout<<"Here 3"<<endl;
}
virtual ~Derived() {}
};
int main()
{
Base *ptr = new Derived;
ptr->f(1);
delete ptr;
return 0;
}
output is
Here 1
This has the feeling of a complete newbie question, but why does the following code not compile when the final specifier is used for B::operator()?
struct A
{
virtual void operator()() const = 0;
};
// the CRTP-component is not really necessary here
// but it possibly makes more sense in that it could be applied like this in reality
//
template<typename Derived>
struct B : A
{
virtual void operator()() const override final
{
static_cast<Derived const&>(*this).operator()();
}
};
struct C : B<C>
{
void operator()() const
{
//do something
}
};
int main()
{
C()();
}
G++ prints the following error message:
main.cpp:17:14: error: virtual function 'virtual void C::operator()() const'
void operator()() const
^
main.cpp:9:22: error: overriding final function 'void B<Derived>::operator()() const [with Derived = C]'
virtual void operator()() const override final
^
I would have thought it works as the non-virtual C::operator() does not override the virtual functions in its base classes? How can I bring this to work (--without changing the name of C::operator())?
EDIT: As pointed out by several users, the answer is simply that the virtual-keyword in the derived class is redundant (whereas I thought leaving it out would prevent from inheriting). However, the goal I had in asking this -- namely a consistent interface throughout the dynamic and static inheritance hierarchy -- can be solved by using a non-virtual operator[] throughout and couple classes A and B by a virtual function apply:
struct A
{
void operator()() const
{
this->apply();
}
protected:
virtual void apply() const = 0;
};
template<typename Derived>
struct B : A
{
void operator()() const
{
static_cast<Derived const&>(*this).operator()();
}
protected:
virtual void apply() const override final
{
this->operator()();
}
};
struct C : B<C>
{
void operator()() const
{
//do something
}
};
int main()
{
C()();
}
If a function is declared virtual in a base class, then a function declared with the same name and parameter list is implicitly virtual in derived classes, whether or not you use the virtual keyword. You cannot make C::operator()() non-virtual.
A function in a derived class with the same signature as a virtual function in a base class overrides that virtual function from the base class. That makes it a virtual function, even if/though the declaration in the derived class doesn't use the virtual key word.
That can't be changed, so if you really need to have a function with the same name in a derived class that doesn't override the virtual function from the base class (and in the process, become virtual itself and in this case, violate the final in B) you'll need to change the signature of the function in the derived class. That can mean a different name, different parameter list, or different qualifiers. I'd treat the latter two with extreme caution though--the compiler will be able to sort out the mess you've made, but many human readers may (very easily) be surprised.
If I were reviewing such code, I'd probably cite this as a problem, and the author would need to provide very solid reasoning for why it was truly necessary to get it approved.
As an override (because it has the same signature as the virtual function in a base class), the override conflicts with the final specified in its base class.
One fix (or rather workaround) is to give that function a defaulted argument, so that it has a different type and hence not an override, and a better approach is to fix the design.
Wikipedia has the following example on the C++11 final modifier:
struct Base2 {
virtual void f() final;
};
struct Derived2 : Base2 {
void f(); // ill-formed because the virtual function Base2::f has been marked final
};
I don't understand the point of introducing a virtual function and immediately marking it as final. Is this simply a bad example, or is there more to it?
Typically final will not be used on the base class' definition of a virtual function. final will be used by a derived class that overrides the function in order to prevent further derived types from further overriding the function. Since the overriding function must be virtual normally it would mean that anyone could override that function in a further derived type. final allows one to specify a function which overrides another but which cannot be overridden itself.
For example if you're designing a class hierarchy and need to override a function, but you do not want to allow users of the class hierarchy to do the same, then you might mark the functions as final in your derived classes.
Since it's been brought up twice in the comments I want to add:
One reason some give for a base class to declare a non-overriding method to be final is simply so that anyone trying to define that method in a derived class gets an error instead of silently creating a method that 'hides' the base class's method.
struct Base {
void test() { std::cout << "Base::test()\n"; }
};
void run(Base *o) {
o->test();
}
// Some other developer derives a class
struct Derived : Base {
void test() { std::cout << "Derived::test()\n"; }
};
int main() {
Derived o;
o.test();
run(&o);
}
Base's developer doesn't want Derived's developer to do this, and would like it to produce an error. So they write:
struct Base {
virtual void test() final { ... }
};
Using this declaration of Base::foo() causes the definition of Derived to produce an error like:
<source>:14:13: error: declaration of 'test' overrides a 'final' function
void test() { std::cout << "Derived::test()\n"; }
^
<source>:4:22: note: overridden virtual function is here
virtual void test() final { std::cout << "Base::test()\n"; }
^
You can decide if this purpose is worthwhile for yourself, but I want to point out that declaring the function virtual final is not a full solution for preventing this kind of hiding. A derived class can still hide Base::test() without provoking the desired compiler error:
struct Derived : Base {
void test(int = 0) { std::cout << "Derived::test()\n"; }
};
Whether Base::test() is virtual final or not, this definition of Derived is valid and the code Derived o; o.test(); run(&o); behaves exactly the same.
As for clear statements to users, personally I think just not marking a method virtual makes a clearer statement to users that the method is not intended to be overridden than marking it virtual final. But I suppose which way is clearer depends on the developer reading the code and what conventions they are familiar with.
For a function to be labelled final it must be virtual, i.e., in C++11 §10.3 para. 2:
[...] For convenience we say that any virtual function overrides itself.
and para 4:
If a virtual function f in some class B is marked with the virt-specifier final and in a class D derived from
B a function D::f overrides B::f, the program is ill-formed. [...]
i.e., final is required to be used with virtual functions (or with classes to block inheritance) only. Thus, the example requires virtual to be used for it to be valid C++ code.
EDIT: To be totally clear: The "point" asked about concerns why virtual is even used. The bottom-line reason why it is used is (i) because the code would not otherwise compile, and, (ii) why make the example more complicated using more classes when one suffices? Thus exactly one class with a virtual final function is used as an example.
It doesn't seem useful at all to me. I think this was just an example to demonstrate the syntax.
One possible use is if you don't want f to really be overrideable, but you still want to generate a vtable, but that is still a horrible way to do things.
Adding to the nice answers above - Here is a well-known application of final (very much inspired from Java). Assume we define a function wait() in a Base class, and we want only one implementation of wait() in all its descendants. In this case, we can declare wait() as final.
For example:
class Base {
public:
virtual void wait() final { cout << "I m inside Base::wait()" << endl; }
void wait_non_final() { cout << "I m inside Base::wait_non_final()" << endl; }
};
and here is the definition of the derived class:
class Derived : public Base {
public:
// assume programmer had no idea there is a function Base::wait()
// error: wait is final
void wait() { cout << "I am inside Derived::wait() \n"; }
// that's ok
void wait_non_final() { cout << "I am inside Derived::wait_non_final(); }
}
It would be useless (and not correct) if wait() was a pure virtual function. In this case: the compiler will ask you to define wait() inside the derived class. If you do so, it will give you an error because wait() is final.
Why should a final function be virtual? (which is also confusing) Because (imo) 1) the concept of final is very close to the concept of virtual functions [virtual functions has many implementations - final functions has only one implementation], 2) it is easy to implement the final effect using vtables.
I don't understand the point of introducing a virtual function and immediately marking it as final.
The purpose of that example is to illustrate how final works, and it does just that.
A practical purpose might be to see how a vtable influences a class' size.
struct Base2 {
virtual void f() final;
};
struct Base1 {
};
assert(sizeof(Base2) != sizeof(Base1)); //probably
Base2 can simply be used to test platform specifics, and there's no point in overriding f() since it's there just for testing purposes, so it's marked final. Of course, if you're doing this, there's something wrong in the design. I personally wouldn't create a class with a virtual function just to check the size of the vfptr.
While refactoring legacy code (e.g. removing a method that is virtual from a mother class), this is useful to ensure none of the child classes are using this virtual function.
// Removing foo method is not impacting any child class => this compiles
struct NoImpact { virtual void foo() final {} };
struct OK : NoImpact {};
// Removing foo method is impacting a child class => NOK class does not compile
struct ImpactChildClass { virtual void foo() final {} };
struct NOK : ImpactChildClass { void foo() {} };
int main() {}
Here is why you might actually choose to declare a function both virtual and final in a base class:
class A {
void f();
};
class B : public A {
void f(); // Compiles fine!
};
class C {
virtual void f() final;
};
class D : public C {
void f(); // Generates error.
};
A function marked final has to be also be virtual. Marking a function final prevents you from declaring a function with the same name and signature in a derived class.
Instead of this:
public:
virtual void f();
I find it useful to write this:
public:
virtual void f() final
{
do_f(); // breakpoint here
}
protected:
virtual void do_f();
The main reason being that you now have a single place to breakpoint before dispatching into any of potentially many overridden implementations. Sadly (IMHO), saying "final" also requires that you say "virtual."
I found another case where for virtual function is useful to be declared as final. This case is part of SonarQube list of warnings. The warning description says:
Calling an overridable member function from a constructor or destructor could result in unexpected behavior when instantiating a subclass which overrides the member function.
For example:
- By contract, the subclass class constructor starts by calling the parent class constructor.
- The parent class constructor calls the parent member function and not the one overridden in the child class, which is confusing for child class' developer.
- It can produce an undefined behavior if the member function is pure virtual in the parent class.
Noncompliant Code Example
class Parent {
public:
Parent() {
method1();
method2(); // Noncompliant; confusing because Parent::method2() will always been called even if the method is overridden
}
virtual ~Parent() {
method3(); // Noncompliant; undefined behavior (ex: throws a "pure virtual method called" exception)
}
protected:
void method1() { /*...*/ }
virtual void method2() { /*...*/ }
virtual void method3() = 0; // pure virtual
};
class Child : public Parent {
public:
Child() { // leads to a call to Parent::method2(), not Child::method2()
}
virtual ~Child() {
method3(); // Noncompliant; Child::method3() will always be called even if a child class overrides method3
}
protected:
void method2() override { /*...*/ }
void method3() override { /*...*/ }
};
Compliant Solution
class Parent {
public:
Parent() {
method1();
Parent::method2(); // acceptable but poor design
}
virtual ~Parent() {
// call to pure virtual function removed
}
protected:
void method1() { /*...*/ }
virtual void method2() { /*...*/ }
virtual void method3() = 0;
};
class Child : public Parent {
public:
Child() {
}
virtual ~Child() {
method3(); // method3() is now final so this is okay
}
protected:
void method2() override { /*...*/ }
void method3() final { /*...*/ } // this virtual function is "final"
};
virtual + final are used in one function declaration for making the example short.
Regarding the syntax of virtual and final, the Wikipedia example would be more expressive by introducing struct Base2 : Base1 with Base1 containing virtual void f(); and Base2 containing void f() final; (see below).
Standard
Referring to N3690:
virtual as function-specifier can be part of decl-specifier-seq
final can be part of virt-specifier-seq
There is no rule having to use the keyword virtual and the Identifiers with special meaning final together. Sec 8.4, function definitions (heed opt = optional):
function-definition:
attribute-specifier-seq(opt) decl-specifier-seq(opt) declarator virt-specifier-seq(opt) function-body
Practice
With C++11, you can omit the virtual keyword when using final. This compiles on gcc >4.7.1, on clang >3.0 with C++11, on msvc, ... (see compiler explorer).
struct A
{
virtual void f() {}
};
struct B : A
{
void f() final {}
};
int main()
{
auto b = B();
b.f();
}
PS: The example on cppreference also does not use virtual together with final in the same declaration.
PPS: The same applies for override.
I think most of the answers miss an important point. final means no more override after it has been specified. Marking it on a base class is close to pointless indeed.
When a derived class might get derived further, it can use final to lock the implementation of a given method to the one it provided.
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
virtual void foo() = 0;
virtual void bar() = 0;
};
class B : public A {
public:
void foo() final override { std::cout<<"B::foo()"<<std::endl; }
void bar() override { std::cout<<"B::bar()"<<std::endl; }
};
class C : public B {
public:
// can't do this as B marked ::foo final!
// void foo() override { std::cout<<"C::foo()"<<std::endl; }
void bar() override { std::cout<<"C::bar()"<<std::endl; }
};
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
C++ : implications of making a method virtual
Why is 'virtual' optional for overridden methods in derived classes?
I wonder, what is documented behavior in the following case:
You have
class A
{
virtual void A()
{
cout << "Virtual A"<<endl;
}
void test_A()
{
A();
}
}
class B: public A
{
void A()
{
cout << "Non-virtual A in derived class"<<endl;
}
void test_B()
{
A();
}
}
A a; B b;
a.test_A();
b.test_A();
b.test_B();
What it supposed to do according to C++ standard and why?
GCC works like B::A is also also virtual.
What shoudl happen in general when you override virtual method by non-virtual one in derived class?
The sub-class member function is implicitly virtual if a virtual base-class member function with the same name and signature exists.
The code should not compile as you cannot name a method with the name of the class. But regarding what I understand that is your real question:
Will making a method virtual imply that the same method in all the derived classes is virtual even if the virtual keyword is not present?
The answer is yes. Once a method is declared virtual in a class, then all overrides of that method will be virtual, and the virtual keyword is optional in derived classes (even if I recommend typing it, if only for documentation purposes). Note that for a method in a derived class to be an override it has to have the same name and signature, with only potential difference being a covariant return type:
struct A {};
struct B : A {};
struct base {
virtual A* foo();
virtual A* bar();
};
struct derived : base {
virtual B* foo(); // override, covariant return type
virtual int bar(); // not override, return type is not covariant
virtual A* bar(int); // not override, different argument list
};
This code is ill-formed. A constructor cannot have a return type (as you have done for the constructor of 'A'). Also a constructor cannot be virtual.
After fixing A's constructor, class B is ill-formed as the constructor of A is private.
So, there are many problems with this code (including missing semicolons at the class definitions).
According to standard it should be
A a; B b;
a.test_A(); //"Virtual A"
b.test_A(); //Non-virtual A in derived class
b.test_B(); //Non-virtual A in derived class
Given the base class A and the derived class B:
class A {
public:
virtual void f() = 0;
};
class B : public A {
public:
void g();
};
void B::g() {
cout << "Yay!";
}
void B::f() {
cout << "Argh!";
}
I get errors saying that f() is not declared in B while trying do define void B::f(). Do I have to declare f() explicitly in B? I think that if the interface changes I shouldn't have to correct the declarations in every single class deriving from it. Is there no way for B to get all the virtual functions' declarations from A automatically?
EDIT: I found an article that says the inheritance of pure virtual functions is dependent on the compiler:
http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/abcpvf.pdf
I'm using VC++2008, wonder if there's an option for this.
Do I have to declare f() explicitly in B?
Yes, you have to declare in the class' definition all virtual function of any base classes that you want to override in the class. As for why: That's just the way the C++ syntax is.
Note that the virtual keyword can be omitted for the declaration of overriding virtual functions:
class base {
virtual void f();
virtual void g();
};
class derived : public base {
virtual void f(); // overrides base::f()
void g(); // overrides base::g()
};
Note: A class declaration is this: class my_class;, while this class my_class { /* ... */ }; is a class definition. There's a limited number of things you can do with a class that's only been declared, but not defined. In particular, you cannot create instances of it or call member functions.
For more about the differences between declaration and definitions see here.
Ok, for the benefit of the "declaration vs. definition" debate happening in the comments, here is a quote from the C++03 standard, 3.1/2:
A declaration is a definition unless it [...] is a class name declaration
[...].
3.1/3 then gives a few examples. Amongst them:
[Example: [...]
struct S { int a; int b; }; // defines S, S::a, and S::b
[...]
struct S; // declares S
—end example]
To sum it up: The C++ standard considers struct S; to be a declaration and struct S { /*...*/ }; a definition. I consider this a strong backup of my interpretation of "declaration vs. definition" for classes in C++.
Yes, in C++ you have to explicitly clarify your intention to override the behavior of a base class method by declaring (and defining) it in the derived class. If you try to provide a new implementation in derived class without declaring it in class definition it will be a compiler error.
The C++ class declaration defines the content of the class. If you do not declare f() in B, it looks like you do not override it. B::f() can be implemented only if you declare it.
In your current code, you are just inheriting the function f() in class B and you do not redefine base class's member in derived class.
Is there no way for B to get all the
virtual functions' declarations from A
automatically?
If you do not mark the function f in A as pure virtual with =0, the function is automatically also present in any subclass.
class A {
public:
virtual void f(); // not =0!
};
class B : public A {
public:
void g();
};
void A::f() {
cout << "I am A::f!";
}
void B::g() {
cout << "Yay!";
}
Now:
B* b = new B();
b->f(); // calls A::f
By declaring a pure virtual function you are stating that your class is abstract and that you want to require all concrete derived classes to have an implementation of that function. A derived class which does not supply an implementation for the pure virtual function is an extension of the abstract base class and is, itself, an abstract class. Trying to instantiate an abstract class is, of course, an error.
Pure virtual functions allow you to define an interface "contract" that you expect all derived classes to adhere to. A client of that class can expect that any instantiated class with that interface implements the functions in the contract.
Another interesting tidbit... you may supply a body for a pure virtual function but it is still pure and must be overridden in a concrete derived class. The advantage to supplying the body is to provide base behavior while still forcing derived classes to implement the function. The overridden functions can then call the base function Base::F() just like other virtual functions. When the body is not defined, calling Base::F() on a pure virtual functions is an error.