Undefined reference when inline specifier used with class member [duplicate] - c++

This question already has answers here:
C++ inlining class methods causes undefined reference
(3 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I have some member functions in a class. When I use the inline specifier, the compiler complains of undefined reference.
I have tried:
Using 'inline' to precede the function definition in the class header file only.
Using 'inline' to precede the function declaration in the class .cpp (where the member functions are specified) file only.
Doing both of the above at the same time.
Obviously, one of these ways is the correct thing to do, and the others are not correct. However trying each option did not get me a program which compiled.
Here is what I am trying to do:
.hpp file:
class A{
void func();
}
.cpp file:
... include ...
inline void A::func()
{
...
}
Or maybe 'inline' goes elsewhere. I have tried all possible combinations I could think of, as I explained above. (Now watch someone tell me I need it AFTER the function name and arguments, like the keyword 'const'.)
Anyone any ideas on what I am doing wrong? I tried googling what the correct answer might be, but no luck. Are 'inline' functions inside a class even a thing?

Inline functions have to be defined in header files. The definition (the body) of the function has to be visible in all translation units that attempt to use that function. You can define it directly inside the class. Or you can define it as in your code, i.e. outside of the class. But it has to be in header file, not in .cpp file.
Attempting to define an inline function in .cpp file will make it usable in that .cpp file only. Trying to use it in other .cpp files will lead to linker errors (i.e. "undefined reference" errors).

Putting inline anything inside the CPP file can only possibly inline the function inside that file. If you want to encourage the compiler to inline the function, you need to forget about the CPP file. Instead, do this in the hpp file:
class A{
inline void func();
};
void A::func() {...}
NB a few points:
Putting inline doesn't mean your function will be inlined. It's a hint to the compiler.
You need optimization (-O3 in gcc) to even have a chance at it being inlined
If you define the function inside the class, it implicitly has the inline keyword on:
class A{
inline void func() {
...
}
};
is the same as the above where it was declared inline in the class and the definition was outside.
There are ways to force GCC to inline your code using function attributes, but I will not describe them because it is rarely a good idea to use them. GCC should do the "best" thing regarding inlining for each function. Forcing it to do something else will almost always result in worse performance.

Related

Duplicate symbol while invoking headers from mainwindow.h [duplicate]

Ok, not a C/C++ expert by any means, but I thought the point of a header file was to declare the functions, then the C/CPP file was to define the implementation.
However, reviewing some C++ code tonight, I found this in a class's header file...
public:
UInt32 GetNumberChannels() const { return _numberChannels; } // <-- Huh??
private:
UInt32 _numberChannels;
So why is there an implementation in a header? Does it have to do with the const keyword? Does that inline a class method? What exactly is the benefit/point of doing it this way vs. defining the implementation in the CPP file?
Ok, not a C/C++ expert by any means, but I thought the point of a header file was to declare the functions, then the C/CPP file was to define the implementation.
The true purpose of a header file is to share code amongst multiple source files. It is commonly used to separate declarations from implementations for better code management, but that is not a requirement. It is possible to write code that does not rely on header files, and it is possible to write code that is made up of just header files (the STL and Boost libraries are good examples of that). Remember, when the preprocessor encounters an #include statement, it replaces the statement with the contents of the file being referenced, then the compiler only sees the completed pre-processed code.
So, for example, if you have the following files:
Foo.h:
#ifndef FooH
#define FooH
class Foo
{
public:
UInt32 GetNumberChannels() const;
private:
UInt32 _numberChannels;
};
#endif
Foo.cpp:
#include "Foo.h"
UInt32 Foo::GetNumberChannels() const
{
return _numberChannels;
}
Bar.cpp:
#include "Foo.h"
Foo f;
UInt32 chans = f.GetNumberChannels();
The preprocessor parses Foo.cpp and Bar.cpp separately and produces the following code that the compiler then parses:
Foo.cpp:
class Foo
{
public:
UInt32 GetNumberChannels() const;
private:
UInt32 _numberChannels;
};
UInt32 Foo::GetNumberChannels() const
{
return _numberChannels;
}
Bar.cpp:
class Foo
{
public:
UInt32 GetNumberChannels() const;
private:
UInt32 _numberChannels;
};
Foo f;
UInt32 chans = f.GetNumberChannels();
Bar.cpp compiles into Bar.obj and contains a reference to call into Foo::GetNumberChannels(). Foo.cpp compiles into Foo.obj and contains the actual implementation of Foo::GetNumberChannels(). After compiling, the linker then matches up the .obj files and links them together to produce the final executable.
So why is there an implementation in a header?
By including the method implementation inside the method declaration, it is being implicitly declared as inlined (there is an actual inline keyword that can be explicitly used as well). Indicating that the compiler should inline a function is only a hint which does not guarantee that the function will actually get inlined. But if it does, then wherever the inlined function is called from, the contents of the function are copied directly into the call site, instead of generating a CALL statement to jump into the function and jump back to the caller upon exiting. The compiler can then take the surrounding code into account and optimize the copied code further, if possible.
Does it have to do with the const keyword?
No. The const keyword merely indicates to the compiler that the method will not alter the state of the object it is being called on at runtime.
What exactly is the benefit/point of doing it this way vs. defining the implementation in the CPP file?
When used effectively, it allows the compiler to usually produce faster and better optimized machine code.
It is perfectly valid to have an implementation of a function in a header file. The only issue with this is breaking the one-definition-rule. That is, if you include the header from multiple other files, you will get a compiler error.
However, there is one exception. If you declare a function to be inline, it is exempt from the one-definition-rule. This is what is happening here, since member functions defined inside a class definition are implicitly inline.
Inline itself is a hint to the compiler that a function may be a good candidate for inlining. That is, expanding any call to it into the definition of the function, rather than a simple function call. This is an optimization which trades the size of the generated file for faster code. In modern compilers, providing this inlining hint for a function is mostly ignored, except for the effects it has on the one-definition-rule. Also, a compiler is always free to inline any function it sees fit, even if it has not been declared inline (explicitly or implicitly).
In your example, the use of const after the argument list signals that the member function does not modify the object on which it is called. In practice, this means that the object pointed to by this, and by extension all class members, will be considered const. That is, trying to modify them will generate a compile-time error.
It is implicitly declared inline by virtue of being a member function defined within the class declaration. This does not mean the compiler has to inline it, but it means you won't break the one definition rule. It is completely unrelated to const*. It is also unrelated to the length and complexity of the function.
If it were a non-member function, then you would have to explicitly declare it as inline:
inline void foo() { std::cout << "foo!\n"; }
* See here for more on const at the end of a member function.
Even in plain C, it is possible to put code in a header file. If you do it, you usually need to declare it static or else multiple .c files including the same header will cause a "multiply defined function" error.
The preprocessor textually includes an include file, so the code in an include file becomes part of the source file (at least from the compiler's point of view).
The designers of C++ wanted to enable object-oriented programming with good data hiding, so they expected to see lots of getter and setter functions. They didn't want an unreasonable performance penalty. So, they designed C++ so that the getters and setters could not only be declared in the header but actually implemented, so they would inline. That function you showed is a getter, and when that C++ code is compiled, there won't be any function call; code to fetch out that value will just be compiled in place.
It is possible to make a computer language that doesn't have the header file/source file distinction, but just has actual "modules" that the compiler understands. (C++ didn't do that; they just built on top of the successful C model of source files and textually included header files.) If source files are modules, it would be possible for a compiler to pull code out of the module and then inline that code. But the way C++ did it is simpler to implement.
As far as I know, there are two kinds of methods, which can be safely implemented inside the header file.
Inline methods - their implementation is copied to places, where they are used, so there is no problem with double-definition linker errors;
Template methods - they are actually compiled at the moment of template instantiation (eg. when someone inputs a type in place of template), so again there is no possibility of double-definition problem.
I believe, your example fits the first case.
C++ standard quotes
The C++17 N4659 standard draft 10.1.6
"The inline specifier" says that methods are implicitly inline:
4 A function defined within a class definition is an inline function.
and then further down we see that inline methods not only can, but must be defined on all translation units:
6 An inline function or variable shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is odr-used and shall
have exactly the same definition in every case (6.2).
This is also explicitly mentioned in a note at 12.2.1 "Member functions":
1 A member function may be defined (11.4) in its class definition, in which case it is an inline member function (10.1.6) [...]
3 [ Note: There can be at most one definition of a non-inline member function in a program. There may be
more than one inline member function definition in a program. See 6.2 and 10.1.6. — end note ]
GCC 8.3 implementation
main.cpp
struct MyClass {
void myMethod() {}
};
int main() {
MyClass().myMethod();
}
Compile and view symbols:
g++ -c main.cpp
nm -C main.o
output:
U _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_
0000000000000000 W MyClass::myMethod()
U __stack_chk_fail
0000000000000000 T main
then we see from man nm that the MyClass::myMethod symbol is marked as weak on the ELF object files, which implies that it can appear on multiple object files:
"W"
"w" The symbol is a weak symbol that has not been specifically tagged as a weak object symbol. When a weak defined symbol is linked with a normal defined symbol, the normal defined symbol is used with no error. When a weak undefined symbol is linked
and the symbol is not defined, the value of the symbol is determined in a system-specific manner without error. On some systems, uppercase indicates that a default value has been specified.
Keeping the implementation in the class header file works, as I'm sure you know if you compiled your code. The const keyword ensures you don't change any members, it keeps the instance immutable for the duration of the method call.

Extern for class method

I want to use extern keyword for class method in C++. I'm using Visual Studio 2019.
I want to force method inline, using __forceinline(without extern I will get unresolved external symbol). I don't want to put method implementation in this header file, I want put implementation in other .cpp file.
I noticed that method may be inlined automaticly without extern and __forceinline and when method's implementation in .cpp file. How can I force it?
Example code:
class Window {
public:
void Show();
};
That's ok!
class Window {
public:
__forceinline void Show();
};
Gets unresolved external symbol when I calls this function from other CPP.
With extern I gets:
screenshot
For simple functions extern __forceinline works fine:
screenshot
You cannot specify extern for a member function.
The standard clarifies this in [dcl.stc]/5:
The extern specifier can be applied only to the names of variables and functions. The extern specifier cannot be used in the declaration of class members or function parameters.
When you use extern, you say to the compiler that you declare a variable or a function, but without defining it. In the case of member functions, this is not needed: they can always be declared in a class body without being defined:
class A {
public:
void f(); // you can define it in which ever compilation unit (cpp) you want
};
...
// Else where...may be in another cpp
void A::f() {...}
The linker will resolve the symbols when needed.
The inline is not so useful
The standard in [dcl.inline]/2 says that inline is not guaranteed:
The inline specifier indicates to the implementation that inline
substitution of the function body at the point of call is to be
preferred to the usual function call mechanism. An implementation is
not required to perform this inline substitution at the point of call;
Furthermore, [dcl.inline]/6 explains that inline and defined eleswhere is not something meant to work well:
An inline function or variable shall be defined in every translation unit in which it is odr-used and shall have exactly the same definition in every case.
(odr says that all the definitions must be exactly the same definition each time)
(in every translation unit means in every cpp or the headers therein included)
On the other side, the global optimizer of some modern compilers is able to achieve similar performance effects than inlined functions, and this accross compilation units (cpp).
Implementation specific forceinline
MSVC 2019 uses inline carefully, making a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether or not to inline.
forceinline allows you to overrule the compiler's judgement. But it comes with all the requirements of the normal inline: so you need to have a definition of the function in the same compilation unit to get it work.
Two things:
You cannot declare a member function as extern. These already have external linkage.
For the compiler to inline a function or method, it has to be defined (as opposed to declared) in the header file. This is so that the compiler can see it when compiling code that calls the function.
So, just put the function body in the header file and drop the extern.
I don't want to put method implementation in this header file, I want put implementation in other .cpp file.
Sounds to me like you just want to have all declarations in one file like this:
This is your window.h- file:
class Window
{
public:
void Show();
};
To have the implementation in another file, you have to use the scope operator.
This is the other window.cpp- file, in which you have the actual implementation of the function:
#include "window.h"
Window::Show()
{
// Your implementation goes here
}
I hope I understood your question right and this helps.

Implementation Inside a Declaration C++ [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
multiple definition error including c++ header file with inline code from multiple sources
(6 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
I want to include implementation of a function inside an .h file.
I know I would rather separate declaration and implementation to .h and .c file accordingly, this is not a part of my question.
When I implement the function inside the class, I receive no errors:
class Foo
{
public:
// Class constructor
Foo() { }
};
When I implement the function outside the class (still in the .h file):
class Foo
{
public:
// Class constructor
Foo();
};
Foo::Foo()
{
}
I receive the following error:
multiple definition of Foo:Foo()
Can someone explain me the logic behind this? Thanks.
This is because when you define the function in the class definition, the method is treated as an inline function. Which can be included in multiple source files, be compiled and linked together and still have the linker not complain about multiple definitions.
But when you define the constructor outside the class, #include it in multiple source files, compile them together and then link them. You get multiple definitions for the same function.
Remember that #includeing a file is essentially a copy paste of that file into the file that #includes it. So every time that file is included, you get a definition for the function in that source file. And then when you compile and link multiple such sources together you get multiple definitions for the same non-inline function.
For more see on inline, see http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/inline. The examples section has a good chunk of code that should help.
You can also explicitly mark the definition outside the class to be inline like #StoryTeller correctly noted.
Mark it inline
class Foo
{
public:
// Class constructor
inline Foo();
};
inline Foo::Foo()
{
}
Like Curious said, an in-class definition is implicitly inline. But if you define it outside the class, in a header, you must add the specifier explicitly.
The inline specifier is very important for correct linkage in cases like this. It allows the same function to exist in multiple translation units, so long as it's the exact same function body. A case that often occurs with functions defined in a header file.

What happens if I implement a class in the header file? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Inline functions in C++
What does the compiler do if I completely implement a class in its header file? A typical example follows:
class MyException
{
public:
explicit MyException(const char* file, int line) file(file), line(line) {};
const char* getFile() const { return file };
int getLine() const { return line };
private:
const char* const file;
const int line;
};
My intention is to use the class like this: throw MyException(__FILE__, __LINE__).
I include this header file into each .cpp file. I suppose the compiler will compile the class as many times as it is defined and include the (identical) machine code into every object file it produces. Now, what will the linker do? I tried a simpler example (without all those pesky const's) and it compiled fine.
What would happen, if instead of a simple class, I implemented a three-screenful-long C function in a header file? And the final question, should I split my example into .h and .cpp files?
All methods will be inline methods. You may loose some minimal time on the overall compilation, but it's ok. As far as I know the only problem that can occur is if you have a static non-cost member variable. Then you have to assign a storage place for it (place a definition and and initial value if you want) presumably in a .cpp or else you will get linker errors about multiple definition.
I've seen header-only projects which had only the main() function in a CPP, but that was heavily templated.
Update for C++17: You can declare static non-const members as inline in your header file since C++17. This makes header-only libraries easily possible without gymnastics like static variables inside inline functions.
A class definition itself doesn't produce any code. It just shows users of the class how it is layed out, so they can generate appropriate code to manipulate it.
It's the member functions of the class that generate code. When you define a member function inside the class definition it gives the function an implicit inline declaration.
A function call can be compiled and linked in one of two ways:
(1) A single copy of the function code with a RETURN assembly instruction at the end can be placed in the image, and a CALL assembly instruction can be placed (along with param passing and return value transfer) at the call site to transfer control to this code.
or
(2) An entire copy of the function implementation can replace the entire function call at the call site.
A function declared inline is a recommendation to the compiler to do it the second way. Further an inline declaration allows the function to be defined in several translation units (so it can be placed in a shared header file). In order for the compiler have the option of implementing the second method, it needs a copy of the function implementation at compile-time. This isn't available if the function implementation is in a foreign translation unit.
It should also be noted that modern compilers do complicated things with functions declared inline. See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Inline.html
When you implement member functions inside a header file, all those functions become implicitly inline.
What does this mean and what implications does it have?
As per,
C++03 Standard §7.1.3/4:
It hints the compiler that substitution of function body at the point of call is preferable over the usual function call mechanism.
Even if the inline substitution is omitted, the other rules(especially w.r.t One Definition Rule) for inline are followed.
So Yes, every translation unit will have the definition of the inline function.This may result in increase in the size of your binaries.
Usually any good mainstream compiler will substitute function body at the point of call if needed, so marking functions inline merely for #1 is not really a good idea but if you want to make your intent clear to users of your class then you can do so by defining the functions within the header or explicitly marking your functions as inline.
Should I split my example into .h and .cpp files?
Yes, that is the usual compilation model that most of the projects use, wherein you separate the interface(.h) from the implementation(.cpp).The interfaces are shared with the users of your code as header files while the implementation is provided in the form of binaries.To some extent this provides a safeguard to your intellectual property.
This is known as the Separation Model.
C++ projects using templates will usually use the Inclusion Model rather than the Separation Model of usual C++ projects.

Qt Creator: “inline function used but never defined” – why?

Why am I getting this warning in Qt Creator: ` inline function ‘bool Lion::growl ()’ used but never defined?
I double-checked my code, and have a declaration
inline bool growl () in Lion (lion.h)
and the corresponding implementation in lion.cpp:
inline bool Lion::growl ()
What’s going on?
EDIT: My assumption has been that it is legal to define the actual inline method in the .cpp file (the inline keyword alerts the compiler to look for the method body elsewhere), or am I mistaken?
I don't want to clutter my header files with implementation details.
Well, I don't know the exact problem, but for starters:
Inline methods are supposed to be implemented in the header file. The compiler needs to know the code to actually inline it.
Also using the "inline" keyword in the class declaration doesn't have any effect. But it cannot hurt either.
See also: c++ faq lite
Inline methods are supposed to be implemented in the header file. The
compiler needs to know the code to actually inline it.
Except if the inline function is used in the same project, possibly in another file that #include its header.
I miss there is such a restriction for libraries because restricting headers to function prototypes make things more readable.
What about #include-ing the .cpp ?
In addition to what Johan said, you cannot have a separate definition and declaration for the function even if both are in the same header file. This holds true especially for member functions of classes. The function code should be of the form:
class someClass
{
void someFunc()
{ ... }
}
// This will make the function inline even w/o the explicit 'inline'
And NOT of the form
class someClass
{
public:
void someFunc();
}
void someClass::someFunc()
{ ... }