Calling Function in MainClass using SubClass - c++

I already saw many answers how to create (e.g.) A class with an object B b and a B class with an object A a
like:
B:
class A;
class B{
A& a;
};
A:
class A{
B b;
};
but if I want to call a function from A in B I got: Invalid use of incomplete type 'class A'
What can I do? I think I know why the compiler say that, but I don't know how to fix it.
Here my latest Code:
Main.cpp:
#include "mainclass.h"
int main()
{
MainClass mainClass;
mainClass.print();
return 0;
}
MainClass.h:
#ifndef MAINCLASS_H
#define MAINCLASS_H
#include <iostream>
#include "subclass.h"
class MainClass
{
SubClass sub;
public:
void print() { sub.print(); }
void printTest() { std::cout << "test" << std::endl; }
};
#endif
SubClass.h:
#ifndef SUBCLASS_H
#define SUBCLASS_H
class MainClass;
class SubClass
{
MainClass* main;
public:
void print() { main->printTest(); }
protected:
private:
};
#endif

The main problem with your code is that the definition of MainClass and SubClass are mutually dependent, therefore the use of the header guards will forbid the inclusion of both header files in the same translation unit (i.e. the union of a cpp file and the all the header files included.)
The forward declaration of class MainClass in subclass.h could solve this problem, since the SubClass::main is a pointer (check the PIMPL idiom), but since you have included the implementation of the class methods in the in the header files, the compiler fails when the SubClass::print() method makes a reference to MainClass::printTest() because it knows nothing about the class MainClass except the fact that it is defined somewhere else.
On the other hand, changing the forward declaration with the explicit inclusion of mainclass.h in subclass.h is not a solution, because of the header guards, as said above.
The simple solution is to split the declaration and the implementation of you classes in .h and .cpp files. If you do so, the compiler will work on multiple translation units: one for the mainclass.cpp, one for the subclass.cpp and one for the main.cpp. When processing the subclass.cpp translation unit, the compiler will be able to include the file mainclass.h and will have the complete definition of MainClass to "see" that a MainClass::printTest() method exists.
Here is the mainclass.h:
#ifndef MAINCLASS_H
#define MAINCLASS_H
#include <iostream>
#include "subclass.h"
class MainClass
{
SubClass sub;
public:
void print();
void printTest();
};
#endif
the mainclass.cpp file:
#include <iostream>
#include "mainclass.h"
void MainClass::print()
{
sub.print();
}
void MainClass::printTest()
{
std::cout << "test" << std::endl;
}
The subclass.h file:
#ifndef SUBCLASS_H
#define SUBCLASS_H
class MainClass;
class SubClass
{
MainClass* main;
public:
void print();
};
#endif
the subclass.cpp:
#include "mainclass.h"
//#include "subclass.h" // already included with the previous line
void SubClass::print()
{
main->printTest();
}
and finally the main.cpp:
#include "mainclass.h"
int main()
{
MainClass mainClass;
mainClass.print();
return 0;
}
This will compile and will apparently work, because it will print the string "test" even if the main pointer is not initialized, and points to an undefined memory area.
This happens because the printTest method does nothing but producing a side effect, i.e. printing on screen. Indeed it does not access to any data member of the MainClass through the this pointer, and therefore you have no memory access violation. Indeed, invoking a method on a not instantiated pointer is an undefined behavior, so it would be better to avoid it, as well as cyclic dependencies.

You can't call a function (MainClass::printTest) that does not exist yet.
You can declare the function inside the SubClass, but define it after you have the MainClass definition.
#include <iostream>
class MainClass;
class SubClass
{
MainClass* main;
public:
void print();
protected:
private:
};
class MainClass
{
SubClass sub;
public:
void print() { sub.print(); }
void printTest() { std::cout << "test" << std::endl; }
};
void SubClass::print() { main->printTest(); }
int main()
{
MainClass mainClass;
mainClass.print();
return 0;
}

Avoid creating function bodies in H files and put the function body into Cpp file.
MainClass.h:
#ifndef MAINCLASS_H
#define MAINCLASS_H
#include <iostream>
#include "subclass.h"
class MainClass {
SubClass sub;
public:
void print();
void printTest();
};
#endif
MainClass.cpp:
#include <iostream>
#include "mainclass.h"
void MainClass :: print () { sub.print(); }
void MainClass :: printTest() {std::cout << "test" << std::endl; }
SubClass.h
#ifndef SUBCLASS_H
#define SUBCLASS_H
#include "mainclass.h"
class SubClass
{
MainClass* main;
public:
void print();
protected:
private:
};
#endif
SubClass.cpp
#include "mainclass.h"
#include "subclass.h"
void SubClass::print ()
{
main->printTest();
}
you can actually #include "mainclass.h" in your subclass.h because it is guarded by #ifdef

You have a design problem:-
How come in SubClass.h compiler will know class MainClass has a method printTest so that it can link to it as you did not included the header file for the definition of MainClass
Another problem is you can not even include MainClass.h in SubClass.h because you are reference to SubClass sub; in it.
MainClass* main; pointer main never initialized and hence this statement void print() { main->printTest(); } is also wrong here.

Related

I need to include two header files to each other not using forward declaration cause get "incomplete type" error

I need to include two header files to each other but I have trouble doing this. Is there any way except using forward declaration and template to do this ? or I'm not allowed to do it in c++?
here is what I want to do:
// A.hpp file
#ifndef H_A_H
#define H_A_H
#include "B.hpp"
class A {
private:
vector<B*> b;
public:
void function() {
// using methods of B
}
};
#endif
// B.hpp file
#ifndef H_B_H
#define H_B_H
#include "A.hpp"
class B {
private:
vector<A*> a;
public:
void function() {
// using methods of A
}
};
#endif
You can't include two header files to each other. There should be forward declaration in one of the files and function definition has to be pushed to .cpp file where you can include the header file.
// HeaderA.h file
#ifndef H_A_H
#define H_A_H
#include "HeaderB.h"
class A {
private:
int b;
public:
void function() {
// using methods of B
B b;
b.function();
}
};
#endif
// HeaderB.h file
#ifndef H_B_H
#define H_B_H
class A;
class B {
private:
int a;
public:
void function();
};
#endif
// Main.cpp
#include "HeaderA.h"
#include "HeaderB.h"
void B::function()
{
// using methods of A
A a;
a.function();
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
return 0;
}
You have a cyclic dependency. This answer explains how to deal with them via forward declarations.
This article also deals with cyclic dependencies.
If you 100% don't want to use forward declarations and it is possible you can split logic in a different class and use composition.
// SomeLogic.h
class SomeLogic
{
};
// A.h
#include "SomeLogic.h"
class A
{
SomeLogic someLogic;
};
// B.h
#include "SomeLogic.h"
class B
{
SomeLogic someLogic;
};

Circular dependency with template function

I have a class A with the following declaration (A.h file):
#ifndef __A_DEFINED__
#define __A_DEFINED__
class A
{
public:
template<typename T> inline void doThat() const;
};
#endif
and a class B deriving from that class (B.h file):
#ifndef __B_DEFINED__
#define __B_DEFINED__
#include <iostream>
#include "A.h"
class B : public A
{
public:
void doThis() const { std::cout << "do this!" << std::endl; }
};
#endif
So far, so good. My issue is that the function A::doThat() uses B::doThis():
template<typename T> inline void A::doThat() const { B b; b.doThis(); }
Usually, the circular dependency would not be an issue because I would just define A::doThat() in the .cpp file. In my case however, doThat is a template function so I can't do that.
Here are the solutions I have envisioned so far:
Defining the template function A::doThat() in a .cpp file. The issue with that is that I need to instantiate explicitly all the calls with various template arguments (there might be many in the real case).
After the declaration of the A class in A.h, add #include "B.h" and then define the A::doThat() function. This works fine in visual studio but g++ does not like it.
Is there a neat way to solve this problem?
EDIT: In the real case, there is not just one child class B, but several (B, C, D, etc.) The function A::doThat() depends on all of them. The function B::doThis() is also templated.
A default template parameter for the B class could work:
#include <iostream>
// include A.h
class B;
class A
{
public:
template<typename T, typename U = B> inline void doThat() const
{
U b; b.doThis();
}
};
// include B.h
class B : public A
{
public:
void doThis() const { std::cout << "do this!" << std::endl; }
};
// main
int main()
{
A a;
a.doThat<int>();
}
Usually the best way to allow a parent to call a child function is to declare the function as a pure virtual function in the parent and override it in the children.
#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
virtual ~A() = default;
template<typename T> inline void doThat() const
{
// do some other stuff
doThis();
}
virtual void doThis() const = 0; // pure virtual function
};
class B: public A
{
public:
void doThis() const override
{
std::cout << "do this!" << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
B b;
A* ap = &b;
ap->doThat<int>();
}
The following does work with g++:
File A.h:
#ifndef __A_DEFINED__
#define __A_DEFINED__
class A
{
public:
template<typename T> inline void doThat() const;
};
#include "B.h"
template<typename T> inline void A::doThat() const { B b; b.doThis(); }
#endif
File B.h:
#include <iostream>
#include "A.h"
// We check for the include guard and set it AFTER the inclusion of A.h
// to make sure that B.h is completely included from A.h again.
// Otherwise the definition of A::doThat() would cause a compiler error
// when a program includes B.h without having included A.h before.
#ifndef __B_DEFINED__
#define __B_DEFINED__
class B : public A
{
public:
void doThis() const { std::cout << "do this!" << std::endl; }
};
#endif
File test_A.cpp:
// In this test case we directly include and use only A.
#include "A.h"
#include "A.h" // We test whether multiple inclusion causes trouble.
int main() {
A a;
a.doThat<int>();
}
File test_B.cpp:
// In this test case we directly include and use only B.
#include "B.h"
#include "B.h" // We test whether multiple inclusion causes trouble.
int main() {
B b;
b.doThat<int>();
b.doThis();
}
Alternative Idea:
I do not know whether you (or some coding conventions) insist on separate header files for each class, but if not the following should work:
You can put the definitions of class A and class B and of the member function template A::doThat<typename>() (in this order) together in one header file AandB.h (or whatever name you like).
This cries for polymorphism. There are two options using polymorphism:
Dynamic polymorphism, i.e. make A an abstract base class and call doThis() virtually:
struct A
{
virtual void do_this() const = 0;
template<typename T>
void doThat() const { doThis(); }
};
struct B : A
{
void doThis() const override { /* ... */ }
};
Of course, this only works if doThis() is not templated. If you need that, you could use
Static polymorphism, i.e. CRTP, when
template<typename Derived>
struct A
{
template<typename T>
void doThat() const { static_cast<const Derived*>(this)->template doThis<T>(); }
};
struct B : A<B>
{
template<typename T>
void doThis() const { /* ... */ }
};
If (as in your example code) B::doThis() is not called for the same object, but for some temporary, you could
template<typename typeB>
struct A
{
template<typename T>
void doThat() const { typeB b; b.template doThis<T>(); }
};

c++, Base class constructor seperate declearation and implementation

In my C++ program I have separate .h and .cpp files and everything is working so far except when I want to use a base class constructor for a derived class. It is working but only if I put the function definition if the class deceleration.
Here's the working code for the .h file.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class property
{
public:
property();
property(const property & src);
property(int src);
~property();
virtual int disp() const = 0;
int get_ownable();
private:
protected:
int ownable;
};
class rr : public property
{
public:
rr();
rr(const rr & src);
rr(int src):property(src)
{cout << "\nderived class was called\n";};
~rr();
virtual int disp() const;
private:
protected:
};
The imp.cpp (implementation) file is
#include "head.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
//property class implimentations
property::property()
{
ownable = 0;
}
property::property(const property & src)
{
ownable = src.ownable;
}
property::property(int src)
{
ownable = src;
cout << "\nparent class called\n";
}
property::~property()
{
}
int property::get_ownable()
{
return ownable;
}
rr::rr()
{}
rr::rr(const rr & src)
{
ownable = src.ownable;
}
/*
rr::rr(int src):property(src)
{
cout << "\nderived class was called\n";
}
*/
rr::~rr()
{
}
int rr::disp() const
{
}
There is other code but it is working fine and not connected to this. The output is
parent class called
derived class was called
So that works just fine but if I un-comment out the function in the .imp file and remove the declaration in the .h
rr(int src):property(src);
I get the error
head.h: IN constructor 'rr::rr(int)':
head.h 113: error: expeted '{' at end of input
imp.cpp: at global scope:
imp.cpp:348:error: redefiniton of 'rr::rr(int);
head.h.113: error: 'rr::rr(int); previousle defined here
All the examples I can find on line of how to do this do it with all the functions defined in the class declaration. I can't find any examples of how to do it with 2 files. Can anyone tell me how to define the base class constructor call in a separate file?
I am on a Linux system using g++ compiler.
Like this
BaseClass.h
#pragma once
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass(int a);
private:
int a_private;
};
BaseClass.cpp
#include "BaseClass.h"
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
BaseClass::BaseClass(int a) {
cout << "Base class constructor called" << endl;
this->a_private = a;
}
Derived.h
#pragma once
#include "BaseClass.h"
class Derived : public BaseClass {
public:
Derived(int a);
private:
int a_private;
};
Derived.cpp
#include "Derived.h"
#include <iostream>
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
Derived::Derived(int a) : BaseClass(a) {
cout << "Derived class constructor called" << endl;
this->a_private = a;
}
main.cpp
#include "BaseClass.h"
#include "Derived.h"
int main() {
Derived d(2);
return 0;
}
Compiling with the command
g++ main.cpp Derived.cpp BaseClass.cpp and running will result in the following output
Base class constructor called
Derived class constructor called
As mentioned in the comments (credits #IgorTandetnik), initializer lists should be used only in the implementation file. Not in the header file (provided the class is not templated).

Multiple classes with the same name causing vtable problems

I have an interesting problem that crept up and I was wondering why GCC/G++ doesn't catch this and throw some kind of error.
Apologies for how many files this takes, but I've reduced the problem as much as possible.
Interface.H
class BaseClass {
public:
virtual void hello() = 0;
};
void rememberClass(BaseClass* foo);
void callFunc();
Interface.C
#include "Interface.H"
namespace {
typedef void (BaseClass::*memfunptr)();
memfunptr func;
BaseClass* obj;
}
void rememberClass(BaseClass* foo) {
func = &BaseClass::hello;
obj = foo;
}
void callFunc() {
(obj->*func)();
}
Class1.H
class Class1 {
public:
Class1();
};
Class2.H
class Class2 {
public:
Class2();
};
Class1.C
#include "Interface.H"
#include "Class1.H"
#include <iostream>
class HelloClass : public BaseClass {
public:
HelloClass() {}
void hello() {
std::cout << "Calling Hello" << std::endl;
}
};
Class1::Class1() {
HelloClass* foo = new HelloClass();
rememberClass(foo);
}
Class2.C
#include "Interface.H"
#include "Class2.H"
#include <iostream>
class HelloClass : public BaseClass {
public:
HelloClass() {}
void hello() {
std::cout << "Calling Hello 2" << std::endl;
}
};
Class2::Class2() {
HelloClass* foo = new HelloClass();
rememberClass(foo);
}
main.C
#include "Class2.H"
#include "Interface.H"
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
Class2 a;
callFunc();
}
Output
g++ Class1.C Interface.C main.C Class2.C
./a.out
Calling Hello
As you can see above, Even though I am constructing a Class2, it prints the output from Class1. This is because the vtable for HelloClass in both the Class1 and Class2 have the same address for HelloClass::hello(), and it is the address of the function in Class1.C
I'm assuming that this is because when GCC is doing the linking, it sees vtables for classes with the same mangled names and just discards one of them. But should it warn about this? Or even cause an error. I have tried with -Wall and -Wextra but nothing is mentioned.
No, the standard explicitly allows the compiler to silently do the wrong thing in this case.
Explicitly, you are causing Undefined Behavior by having two conflicting definitions for the same decorated name in the same program.
It is called the ODR "One Definiton Rule".
Chapter 3.2.
Use explicit name for namespaces

Solving cross referencing

I have a problem creating some form of hierarchy with different object types. I have a class which has a member of another class, like this:
class A
{
public:
A(){}
~A(){}
void addB(B* dep){
child = dep;
dep->addOwner(this);
}
void updateChild(){
child->printOwner();
}
void print(){
printf("Printing...");
}
private:
B* child;
};
And this is class B:
class B
{
public:
void addOwner(A* owner){
ownerObject = owner;
}
//ISNT WORKING
void printOwner(){
ownerObject->print();
}
private:
A* ownerObject;
};
Calling a function of "B" out of class "A" works just fine but trying it vice versa gives a compiler error because A is not defined in B. It actually is by using an include and a forward declaration, but I guess its a cross reference problem which the compiler can not solve.
Is there any chance to solve this problem or should I rethink my design?
You say that you already solved your circular dependency problem by using a forward declaration of A instead of including the header where A is defined, so you already know how to avoid circular includes. However, you should be aware of what is possible and what is not with incomplete types (i.e. types that have been forward declared).
In your case, you try to call the member function print on an object that has an incomplete type; the compiler knows nothing about this type excepts that it will be defined at some point, so it does not allow you to do this. The solution is to remove the implementation of the printOwner member function from the B header and put it into an implementation file:
//B.hpp
class A; // forward declaration
class B
{
public:
void addOwner(A* owner);
void printOwner() const; // I think this member function could be const
private:
A* ownerObject;
};
//B.cpp
#include "B.hpp"
#include "A.hpp" // here we "import" the definition of A
void B::addOwner(A * owner)
{
ownerObject = owner;
}
void B::printOwner() const
{
ownerObject->print(); //A is complete now, so we can use its member functions
}
You could possibly do the same thing in the A header.
You can use forward declaration, and define the member functions outside of the class, i.e.
// A.h
class B;
class A { public:
void addB(B* dep); // don't define addB here.
...
};
// B.h
class A;
class B { public:
void addOwner(A* owner); // don't define addOwner here.
...
};
// A.cpp
#include "A.h"
#include "B.h"
void A::addB(B* dep) {
...
}
// B.cpp
// similar.
You probably should rethink your design, since a crcular parent-child relationship is usually a code smell.
But, you can make the compiler happy :
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
class A
{
public:
A(){}
~A(){}
void addB(class B* dep);
void updateChild();
void print(){
printf("Printing...");
}
private:
class B* child;
};
class B
{
public:
void addOwner(A* owner){
ownerObject = owner;
}
//ISNT WORKING
void printOwner(){
ownerObject->print();
}
private:
A* ownerObject;
};
void A::addB(class B* dep){
child = dep;
dep->addOwner(this);
}
void A::updateChild(){
child->printOwner();
}
int main()
{
return 0;
}
You should move B::printOwner implementation to .cpp file.