Derived class doesn't override a virtual function with a different signature - c++

I have a derived class where I want one of the functions to override its version in the base class, but have a different signature.
Simple example:
#include "stdio.h"
bool use_foo = false;
class Foo {
public:
virtual int func(double x) { printf ("%f in Foo!\n", x); }
};
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
int func(short x) { printf ("%d in Bar!\n", x); }
};
int main () {
Foo* A;
if (use_foo)
A = new Foo;
else
A = new Bar;
A->func(2);
return 0;
}
The above code would call the base class copy even though A was allocated as the derived class:
> g++ test.cpp -o test -O3 && ./test
2.000000 in Foo!
Because (as far as my understanding goes) the argument can be converted to match the base class signature, and the derived class doesn't override it because of this difference (but wouldn't it hide it in that case?). If I change the base class function to have short as argument as well, the derived class does manage to override it.
Is there a simple way to convince the call to use the correct function based on the pointer? I could add another function like this:
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
int func2(short x) { printf ("%d in Bar!\n", x); }
int func(double x) { func2(x); }
};
But then I would convert the arguments all the time (short->double->short), and this function is performance critical. Is there a better way?

These function signatures are not identical:
virtual int func(double x) {...} // base class
int func(short x) {...} // derived class
One uses double parameter, the other uses short. For overriding to occur several conditions must be met. Identical parameter types of the base and derived functions being one of them. Bellow is the excerpt from the "Modern Effective C++" book by Scott Meyers on all the requirements:
• The base class function must be virtual.
• The base and derived
function names must be identical (except in the case of destructors).
• The parameter types of the base and derived functions must be
identical.
• The constness of the base and derived functions must be
identical.
• The return types and exception specifications of the base
and derived functions must be compatible.
Alternatively, make the signatures the same and perform the casting inside a derived function body:
int func(double x) override {
short temp = static_cast<short>(x);
// ...
}

What sense does this make anyway? The reason you use a virtual function is that the caller should only be required to know the base class, and thus only the base-class signature.
In other words, code which has, say, a Foo& or a Foo* or a std::unique_ptr<Foo>, only knows about the double version of your function anyway. It will pass a double when it calls func, because what else should it do?
Perhaps what you really want to do is the subclass implementation of the function to convert the double to a short. Here's an example for that, which also gets rid of the printf in favour of a type-safe C++ stream:
class Bar : public Foo {
public:
int func(double x) { std::cout << static_cast<short>(x) << " in Bar!\n"; }
};
Note that since C++11, you are encouraged to use override to mark overriding functions.
and this function is performance critical.
Should a performance-critical function be virtual at all?
Have you actually measured the speed? Is there a noticeable delay? Or are computers too fast anyway?

Related

Is it possible to force non-const virtual methods from superclasses to take precedence over const methods of the same name in a subclass?

Consider the following class definitions:
class foo {
virtual absl::Span<const Input *const> GetInputs() const = 0;
virtual absl::Span<Input *const> GetInputs() {
auto mutable_inputs = GetMutableInputs();
return absl::MakeSpan(mutable_inputs.begin(), mutable_inputs.end());
}
}
class bar : public foo {
absl::Span<const Input *const> GetInputs() const override {
return absl::MakeConstSpan(inputs_);
}
}
When calling bar.GetInputs() it seems like the only implementation found is the the one that returns a span of constant inputs. If I have an instance of bar, and want to create a span of non-const inputs, then I must cast bar to foo, and then call GetInputs.
If I cast bar to foo, then call GetInputs, I am then able to assign the result to a span of non-const inputs. Why does the compiler fail to identify the inherited non-const method with the correct return type? Is there a way to make the subclass identify that method?
In other words, is there a way to make the following code compile:
absl::Span<Input *const> tmp = bar.GetInputs()
If I understand your question, it has nothing to do with virtual functions or "precedence" of const, but is plain old "name hiding".
#include <iostream>
class Base {
public:
virtual void f(int) { std::cout << "Base(int)\n"; }
virtual void f(double) { std::cout << "Base(double)\n"; }
};
class Derived : public Base {
public:
virtual void f(double) { std::cout << "Derived(double)\n"; }
};
int main() {
Derived d;
int x=0;
d.f(x);
}
output: Derived(double)
The issue is, name lookup doesn't work the way it seems you expect.
For a given scope, it searches for names to build an overload set. Within the context of Derived, there is only one f(), so when it's found, the compiler stops searching further for more overloads.
It finds Derived(double) and that's the entire overload set, and so it is selected. When you cast your derived class to a reference to the base, and then call something, both functions (declared in the base) are considered, and overload resolution selects the best match.
Now, normally, for polymorphic types you are working with the objects in terms of pointers/references to the base, so it's not an issue. But if you are calling directly on the derived class (perhaps from inside a member of derived?) then it'll have this issue of the derived declaration hiding the base names.
To make the base names visible in the derived class, it's easy:
class Derived : public Base {
public:
using base::f; // <<<<<<<< just add this
virtual void f(double) { std::cout << "Derived(double)\n"; }
};
you should add
using foo::GetInputs;
in bar class to expose the base class function.
you will be able to call the base class function if the object is non-const

Inheritance with an override function

I'm looking at some C++ example code, which effectively has the following:
class Foo : public mynamespace::Bar
{
public:
Foo()
{
// Do some stuff
}
void Delta() override
{
// Do some stuff
Bar::Delta();
}
};
I am having trouble understanding why the line Bar::Delta(); exists. Given that class Foo inherits class Bar, then surely when Foo::Delta() is called, this overrides anything existing in Bar::Delta(), and hence this line is redundant.
Or am I misunderstanding this whole inheritance thing? Maybe override doesn't override everything?
Bar::Delta();
is a function call. Isn't that what it looks like?
It's calling the base class version of Delta - by explicitly qualifying it as Bar::Delta - in addition to whatever extra stuff Foo's version does.
Maybe override doesn't override everything?
The override keyword just asks the compiler to verify you're really overriding a virtual function - otherwise, it's easy to accidentally write a new function which doesn't override anything (eg. because a parameter type is slightly different, or one version is const-qualified, or you changed the base class and forgot to update the derived class, or ...).
Here you are overriding the virtual function. That doesn't stop the base class implementation from existing, and as you've seen you can still call it.
You can (and should) test your intuition about this sort of thing yourself. Consider the trivial test code below. What do you think it will do?
Now actually run it. Were you right? If not, which part was unexpected?
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
struct Bar {
virtual void Delta() {
cout << "Bar::Delta\n";
}
};
struct Foo : public Bar {
void Delta() override
{
cout << "Foo::Delta\n";
Bar::Delta();
}
};
int main()
{
cout << "b.Delta()\n";
Bar b;
b.Delta();
cout << "f.Delta()\n";
Foo f;
f.Delta();
cout << "pb->Delta()\n";
Bar *pb = &b;
pb->Delta();
cout << "pb->Delta()\n";
pb = &f;
pb->Delta();
}
This is a common pattern. In fact, the :: syntax for calling an overridden member function is there specifically for this situation.
It is very common for member function in a base class to perform some computation or action which can be done independently of the derived class, and let the derived class do things specific to the derivation.
Here is a fictitious example:
class Stock {
protected:
double totalDividend;
double baseDividend;
double adjustmentFactor;
public:
Stock(double d, double a)
: baseDividend(d), totalDividend(d), adjustmentFactor(a) {
}
virtual void double ComputeDividend() {
return totalDividend * adjustmentFactor;
}
};
class SpecialStock {
private:
double specialDividend;
public:
SpecialStock(double d, double sd, double a)
: Stock(d, a), specialDividend(sd) {
}
virtual void double ComputeDividend() override {
// Do some preparations
totalDividend = baseDividend + specialDividend;
// Call the overridden function from the base class
return Stock::ComputeDividend();
}
};
You seem to misunderstand what override means in c++. You should not really bother by it for your case. It's like a normal virtual function. override keyword is just a safety mechanism to ensure that a base class has matching function. It doesn't change anything other than semantic compile-time checks.
It is somewhat useful to guard against typical mismatches, such a const vs non-const versions, etc.
The virtual method mechanism does not replace the original member functions. It still is there in the Derived object. What happens is that a level of indirection is introduced, so a call to base.foo() uses a function pointer to call correct implementation which is Derived::Foo() in your case. But Base::Foo() still exists, and this is the syntax to "access" it. You can look up how exactly it work by searching materials on virtual methods.
Maybe override doesn't override everything?
The override specifier can be used to make compile-time checks when overriding a function that the function being overridden is virtual and is in fact being overridden.
why the line Bar::Delta(); exists
This line calls the base Delta function which might have some useful tasks to perform even though you have overridden it.
A simple example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
virtual void Foo()
{
// run tasks that are common to all derived types
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void Foo() override
{
Base::Foo(); // we have to call this explicitly
// run tasks specific to the derived type
}
};
Delta in foo is a virtual method which "does some stuff" and then calls the base class's implementation of Delta.
override does not override anything, declaring the method as virtual does that. override is just for the compiler to throw syntax error in case the parent class doesn't have the Delta method.

Function overriding in C++ works without 'virtual'

I have a class that contains some functions (none are virtual) and 2 more classes publicly inherit that class. In both the sub classes I override the same function of the base class.
After creating objects of all three classes in main (located at the same file), I call the original function with the baseclass object and the overridden functions with the derivedclass objects.
I was expecting all 3 function calls to run the original function from the base class (since I didn't use 'virtual' anywhere in the code), but I actually get each version of that function working according to the class in which it was defined (3 different versions).
I have the classes Base & Derived as follows:
struct Base
{
void foo();
};
struct Derived : Base
{
void foo();
};
in main:
int main()
{
Derived d;
d.foo();
}
I thought d.foo() should run Base::foo() if not using 'virtual'.
This is not "overriding"... and it doesn't need to be.
struct Base
{
void foo();
};
struct Derived : Base
{
void foo();
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
d.foo();
}
If I understand you correctly, then you were expecting this to execute Base::foo(), because the functions are not virtual and therefore one does not override the other.
But, here, you do not need virtual dispatch: the rules of inheritance simply state that you'll get the right function for the type of the object you run it on.
When you need virtual dispatch/overriding is a slightly different case: it's when you use indirection:
int main()
{
Base* ptr = new Derived();
ptr->foo();
delete ptr;
}
In the above snippet, the result will be that Base::foo() is called, because the expression ptr->foo() doesn't know that *ptr is really a Derived. All it knows is that ptr is a Base*.
This is where adding virtual (and, in doing so, making the one function override the other) makes magic happen.
You cannot override something that isn't virtual. Non-virtual member functions are dispatched statically based on the type of the instance object.
You could cheat by "overriding" a function by making it an inline function calling something indirectly. Something like (in C++03)
class Foo;
typedef int foo_sig_t (Foo&, std::string&);
class Foo {
foo_sig_t *funptr;
public:
int do_fun(std::string&s) { return funptr(*this,s); }
Foo (foo_sig_t* fun): funptr(fun) {};
~Foo () { funptr= NULL; };
// etc
};
class Bar : public Foo {
static int barfun(Bar&, std::string& s) {
std::cout << s << std::endl;
return (int) s.size();
};
public:
Bar () : Foo(reinterpret_cast<foo_sig_t*>)(&barfun)) {};
// etc...
};
and later:
Bar b;
int x=b.do_fun("hello");
Officially this is not overloading a virtual function, but it looks very close to one. However, in my above Foo example each Foo instance has its own funptr, which is not necessarily shared by a class. But all Bar instances share the same funptr pointing to the same barfun.
BTW, using C++11 lambda anonymous functions (internally implemented as closures), that would be simpler and shorter.
Of course, virtual functions are in generally in fact implemented by a similar mechanism: objects (with some virtual stuff) implicitly start with a hidden field (perhaps "named" _vptr) giving the vtable (or virtual method table).

C++: rationale behind hiding rule

What's the rationale behind the hiding rule in C++?
class A { void f(int); }
class B : public A { void f(double); } // B::f(int) is hidden
If it is a meaningful feature I think it should also be possible to hide functions without defining new functions with the same name: something like this:
class B : public A { hide void f(double); }
but this is not possible.
I don't think it simplifies compilers job, since compilers must anyway be able to unhide functions when you explicitly use the using directive:
class B : public A { using A::f; void f(double); } // B::f(int) NOT hidden
So, how come there is a hiding rule?
It's an hairy question, but apparently the idea is that this hiding feature helps avoiding subtle bugs when making changes to a base class (that could otherwise "steal" calls that before would have been handled by the derived class). Still a change in a base class can influence the result of compilation of derived classes so I don't think I understand 100% this explanation.
I agree that this topic is so frequently discussed that probably the hiding actually increases the amount of "surprises" in C++ programmers.
A detailed discussion about this issue can be found here...
i don't know the original rationale, but since hide or not hide are about equally bad choices wrt. to functions, i'm guessing the rationale is to have uniform rules: the same as for names defined in nested curly-braces scopes.
the hiding helps you in some ways.
adding a method to a base class will by default not affect overload resolution for a derived class.
and you do not run afoul of overload resolution by some mishap directing your call with say argument false, to a base class method with formal argument void*. such things.
cheers & hth.,
I'm sure I've seen this case offered by a C++ bigwig, not sure which:
struct Base {
void f(const Base&);
};
struct Derived : Base {
using Base::f;
void f(double);
};
int main() {
Derived d;
d.f('a'); // calls Derived::f
}
Now, add void f(int); to Base, and the meaning of main changes - it calls Base::f because int is a better match for char - it's an integer promotion rather than a standard conversion.
It's not clear whether that change to the base would really be intended by the programmer to catch calls with char, so requiring using to be explicit means the default behavior is that the change doesn't affect the calling code. I believe it's a marginal call, but I think the committee decided that base classes in C++ were fragile enough as they are, without this too :-)
There's no need for a "hide" keyword because there's no comparable case for hiding "f" from the Base when it isn't overloaded in Derived.
Btw, I've chosen the types, and char is deliberately incongruous. You can get more subtle cases with int vs unsigned int rather than int vs char.
Another reason for hiding base class's member function (with same name but different signatures) might be due to ambiguity caused by optional parameters. Consider the following example:
#include <stdio.h>
class A
{
public:
int foo(int a, int b=0)
{
printf("in A : %d, %d\n", a, b);
}
};
class B : public A
{
public:
int foo(int a)
{
printf("in B : %d\n", a);
foo(a); //B:foo(a) will be called unless we explicitly call A:foo(a)
foo(a, 1); // compile error: no matching function for call to B:foo(int&, int)
}
};
int main()
{
B b;
b.foo(10);
return 0;
}
If the foo method in base class hadn't become hidden, it wouldn't be possible for compiler to decide whether A::foo should be called or B::foo since the following line matches both signatures:
foo(a);
Probably, the reason is template specialization. I give you an example:
template <int D> struct A { void f() };
template <> struct A<1> { void f(int) };
template <int D>
struct B: A<D>
{
void g() { this->f(); }
};
The template class B has a method f(), but until you don't create an instance of the class B you don't know the signature. So the call this->f() is anytime "legal". Both GCC and CLang don't report error until you create the instance. But when you call the method g() on a B<1> instance they indicate the error. So the hiding rule keep simpler to check if your code is valid.
I report the last part of code used in my example.
int main (int argc, char const *argv[])
{
B<0> b0; /* valid */
B<1> b1; /* valid */
b0.g(); /* valid */
b1.g(); /* error: no matching function for call to ‘B<1>::f()’ */
return 0;
}

How to pass method result as parameter to base class constructor in C++?

I've trying to achieve something like this:
class Base
{
public:
Base(string S)
{
...
};
}
class Derived: Base
{
public:
int foo;
string bar()
{
return stringof(foo); // actually, something more complex
};
Derived(int f) : foo(f), Base(bar())
{
};
}
Now, this doesn't work as I want, because bar() is called in the Derived constructor before foo is initialized.
I considered adding a static function similar to bar() which takes foo as a parameter - and using that in the initialization list, but thought I'd ask if there were any other techniques that could be used to dig myself out of this one...
Edit: Thanks for feedback - here's how I was going to handle the static function. Not sure if the overload between a static and non-static function is too clever, but...
class Derived: Base
{
public:
int foo;
static string bar(int f)
{
return stringof(f); // actually, something more complex
}
string bar()
{
return bar(foo);
};
Derived(int f) : Base(bar(f)) , foo(f)
{
};
}
Yes, using a function (static class method or regular function) that takes foo as a parameter and returns a string is a good solution. You can call this same function from Derived::bar to prevent code duplication. So, your constructor would look like this:
Derived(int f) : Base(stringof(f)), foo(f) {}
I place the call to the Base constructor first in the list to emphasize the order in which the initializations occur. The ordering of the initializer list has no effect as all class members are initialized in the order that they are declared in the class body.
This is a very clean, functional approach to the problem. However, if you still would like to weigh alternatives then consider using composition instead of inheritance for the relationship between the Derived and Base classes:
class Base {
public:
Base(string S) { ... }
void bat() { ... }
};
class Derived {
Base *base;
int foo;
public:
Derived(int f) : base(NULL), foo(f) {
base = new Base(bar());
}
~Derived() {
delete base;
}
string bar() {
return stringof(foo); // actually, something more complex
}
void bat() {
base->bat();
}
};
You will need to consider the pros and cons for your specific situation. With Derived holding a reference to Base you gain greater control over the initialization order.
You can only call static functions in the initializer list. The way you have it in your code:
class Derived: Base
{
public:
int foo;
string bar()
{
return stringof(foo); // actually, something more complex
};
Derived(int f) : foo(f), Base(bar())
{
};
}
Will still initialize Base first, and then foo. The order of how you write things in an constructor initializer list does not matter in any way. It will always construct in this order:
First, all virtual base classes
Then the non-virtual base classes in the order they appear in the base-classes list
Then all member objects in the order they are defined in the class definition.
Thus, you end up calling stringof with an uninitialized value. This problem is solved in boost::base_from_member. Also note that calling any nonstatic member function before all the constructor initializers of all base-classes completed is undefined behavior.
Calling static functions, however, is totally fine:
class Derived: Base
{
public:
int foo;
static string bar(int f)
{
return stringof(f); // actually, something more complex
};
Derived(int f) : Base(bar(f)), foo(f)
{
};
}
The base class constructor always gets called before initializing the other members of the derived class; your compiler should be giving you a warning for having the initializers in the wrong order. The only correct solution is to make bar() a static method that takes f as a parameter.
The constructor is for, well, constructing the object. This means that, until it returns, there isn't an object there, and therefore that calling member functions just isn't going to work reliably. As everybody else says, use a static function or a non-member function.
I've been wanting to do this as well, but I gave up in the end.
Any suitable function call could be used as the parameter of Base().
Another option is to add and alternative constructor to Base that takes an int and does the conversion to 'string' itself.
Just move your constructor code to an Initialize() function and call it from the constructor. This is much simpler than static/nonstatic overriding or anything like that.