EDIT:
I have no updated the question, whilst doing so I realized the scope of the question has completely changed, so I apologize for this. I am dealing with Threads so that static function has to be there. I have tried to abstract the Threading stuff out of the question as much as possible.
I am getting a pure virtual function call error, so I thought maybe I have the implementation wrong. Here is what I have:
class Base
{
protected:
virtual int f(void) = 0;
static void baseFunction(void* param);
};
static void Base::baseFunction (void* param)
{
Base *parent = (Base*) parameter;
int i = parent->f();
}
class Derived : public Base
{
private:
int _memeber;
int f(void);
};
int Derived::f(void)
{
_member = 0;
cout << "Derived _memeber is: " << _member << endl;
return 0;
}
void main ()
{
Derived d;
d.baseFunction(d);
}
I need the function Derived::f(void) to have access to the Derived class members.
The definition looks fine, but I will hazard a guess that you're calling the virtual function from the constructor or destructor of Base. In that case, virtual dispatch is done as if the dynamic type were Base, not Derived, and if the function is pure virtual then you get undefined behaviour.
UPDATE: You also say "I am dealing with threads". In that case, it's possible that a data race could cause one thread to call the function while another is still constructing the object - again, giving undefined behaviour. You need to make sure all data accesses are correctly synchronised.
It's OK, just missing semicolons after the class declarations.
Add return type to the Derived method. Also add semicolons after class definitions
You are missing the return type for f and ; after class definitions
Change your code to
class Base
{
protected:
virtual int f(void) = 0;
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
int f(void);
};
int Derived::f(void)
{
// do something here
}
Further, post runnable code if possible. Iow add
int main()
{
Derived d;
d.f();
}
to your code sample
Make all your functions in your two classes public. And why are you declaring int i? it's not used at all.
you need to declare
class Derived : public Base
{
protected:
virtual int f(void);
}
I suppose your pure virtual function call comes from Base class using f in another of it's methods.
Related
I did a simple test today:
struct C{virtual void f()=0;};
void C::f(){printf("weird\n");}
The program is OK, but is weird to me, when we use =0 it means the function body should be defined in the inherited classes, but it seems I can still give it implementation function.
I tried both GCC and VC, both OK. So it seems to me this should be part of C++ standard.
But why this is not a syntax error?
A reason I could think of is like C# having both 'interface' and 'abstract' keywords, interface can't have an implementation, while abstract could have some implementations.
Is this the case for my confusion, that C++ should support such a kind of weird syntax?
C++ Supports pure virtual functions with an implementation so class designers can force derived classes to override the function to add specific details , but still provide a useful default implementation that they can use as a common base.
Classic example:
class PersonBase
{
private:
string name;
public:
PersonBase(string nameIn) : name(nameIn) {}
virtual void printDetails() = 0
{
std::cout << "Person name " << name << endl;
}
};
class Student : public PersonBase
{
private:
int studentId;
public:
Student(string nameIn, int idIn) : PersonBase(nameIn), studentId(idIn) { }
virtual void printDetails()
{
PersonBase::printDetails(); // call base class function to prevent duplication
std::cout << "StudentID " << studentId << endl;
}
};
Others mentioned language consistency with the destructor, so I'll go for a software engineering stand-point:
It's because the class you are defining may have a valid default implementation, but calling it is risky/expansive/whatever. If you don't define it as pure virtual, derived classes will inherit that implementation implicitly. And may never know until run-time.
If you define it as pure virtual, a derived class must implement the function. And if it's okay with the risk/cost/whatever, it can call the default implementation statically as Base::f();
What's important is that it's a conscious decision, and the call is explicit.
Basically, the best of both worlds (or the worst...).
The derived class is required to implement the pure virtual method, the designer of the base class requires this for some reason. And the base class also provides a default implementation of this method that, if the derived class desires or requires it, can be used.
So some sample code could look like;
class Base {
public:
virtual int f() = 0;
};
int Base::f() {
return 42;
}
class Derived : public Base {
public:
int f() override {
return Base::f() * 2;
}
};
So what is a common use case...
A common use case for this technique is related to the destructor - basically the designer of the base class desires that it is an abstract class, but none of the methods make much sense as being pure virtual functions. The destructor is a feasible candidate.
class Base {
public:
~Base() = 0;
};
Base::~Base() { /* destruction... */ }
A pure virtual function must be overriden in subclasses. However, you can provide a default-implementation, that will work for sub-classes, but might not be optimal.
A constructed use case is for abstract shapes, e.g.
class Shape {
public:
virtual Shape() {}
virtual bool contains(int x, int y) const = 0;
virtual int width() const = 0;
virtual int height() const = 0;
virtual int area() const = 0;
}
int Shape::area() const {
int a = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < width(); ++x) {
for (int y = 0; y < height(); ++y) {
if (contains(x,y)) a++;
}
}
return a;
}
The area method will work for any shape, but is highly inefficient. Subclassers are encouraged to provide a suitable implementation, but if there is none available, they still can explicitely call the base class's method
Pure virtual means "child must override".
So:
struct A{ virtual void foo(){}; };
struct B:A{ virtual void foo()=0; };
struct C:B{ virtual void foo(){}; };
struct D:C{ virtual void foo()=0; };
void D::foo(){};
struct E:D{ virtual void foo(){D::foo();}; };
A has a virtual foo.
B makes it abstract. Before making an instance, derived types must implement it now.
C implements it.
D makes it abstract, and adds an imllementation.
E implements it by calling D's implementation.
A, C and E can have instances created. B and D cannot.
The technique of abstract with implementation can be used to provide a partial or inefficient implementation that derived types can call explicitly when they want to use it, but do not get "by default" because that would be ill advised.
Another intersting use case is where the parent interface is in flux, and tue code base is large. It has a fully functional implementation. Children who use the default must repeat the signature and forward explicitly to it. Those that want to override simply override.
When the base class sigrnature changes, the code will fail to compile unless every child either explicitly calls the default or properly overrides. Prior to the override keyword this was the only way to ensure you did not accidentally create a new virtual function instead of overriding a parent, and it remains the only way where the policy is enforced in the parent type.
Please note that you cannot instantiate an object with pure virtual methods.
Try to instantiate:
C c;
with VC2015, there is an error as expected:
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): error C2259: 'C': cannot instantiate abstract class
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): note: due to following members:
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): note: 'void C::f(void)': is abstract
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(6): note: see declaration of 'C::f'
To answer your question:
The mechanisms only declares the function to be pure virtual, but there is still the virtual function table and the baseclass. It will avoid you instanciate Baseclass (C), but does not avoid using it:
struct D : public C { virtual void f(); };
void D::f() { printf("Baseclass C::f(): "); C::f(); }
...
D d;
d.f();
The destructor must be defined, even if it is pure virtual. If you don't define the destructor the compiler will generate one.
Edit: you can't leave destructor declared without define, will cause link error.
You can anyway call the body of the function from derived classes.
You can implement the body of a pure virtual function to provide a default behavior, and at the same time you want that the designer of the derived class use that function explicitly.
I did a simple test today:
struct C{virtual void f()=0;};
void C::f(){printf("weird\n");}
The program is OK, but is weird to me, when we use =0 it means the function body should be defined in the inherited classes, but it seems I can still give it implementation function.
I tried both GCC and VC, both OK. So it seems to me this should be part of C++ standard.
But why this is not a syntax error?
A reason I could think of is like C# having both 'interface' and 'abstract' keywords, interface can't have an implementation, while abstract could have some implementations.
Is this the case for my confusion, that C++ should support such a kind of weird syntax?
C++ Supports pure virtual functions with an implementation so class designers can force derived classes to override the function to add specific details , but still provide a useful default implementation that they can use as a common base.
Classic example:
class PersonBase
{
private:
string name;
public:
PersonBase(string nameIn) : name(nameIn) {}
virtual void printDetails() = 0
{
std::cout << "Person name " << name << endl;
}
};
class Student : public PersonBase
{
private:
int studentId;
public:
Student(string nameIn, int idIn) : PersonBase(nameIn), studentId(idIn) { }
virtual void printDetails()
{
PersonBase::printDetails(); // call base class function to prevent duplication
std::cout << "StudentID " << studentId << endl;
}
};
Others mentioned language consistency with the destructor, so I'll go for a software engineering stand-point:
It's because the class you are defining may have a valid default implementation, but calling it is risky/expansive/whatever. If you don't define it as pure virtual, derived classes will inherit that implementation implicitly. And may never know until run-time.
If you define it as pure virtual, a derived class must implement the function. And if it's okay with the risk/cost/whatever, it can call the default implementation statically as Base::f();
What's important is that it's a conscious decision, and the call is explicit.
Basically, the best of both worlds (or the worst...).
The derived class is required to implement the pure virtual method, the designer of the base class requires this for some reason. And the base class also provides a default implementation of this method that, if the derived class desires or requires it, can be used.
So some sample code could look like;
class Base {
public:
virtual int f() = 0;
};
int Base::f() {
return 42;
}
class Derived : public Base {
public:
int f() override {
return Base::f() * 2;
}
};
So what is a common use case...
A common use case for this technique is related to the destructor - basically the designer of the base class desires that it is an abstract class, but none of the methods make much sense as being pure virtual functions. The destructor is a feasible candidate.
class Base {
public:
~Base() = 0;
};
Base::~Base() { /* destruction... */ }
A pure virtual function must be overriden in subclasses. However, you can provide a default-implementation, that will work for sub-classes, but might not be optimal.
A constructed use case is for abstract shapes, e.g.
class Shape {
public:
virtual Shape() {}
virtual bool contains(int x, int y) const = 0;
virtual int width() const = 0;
virtual int height() const = 0;
virtual int area() const = 0;
}
int Shape::area() const {
int a = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < width(); ++x) {
for (int y = 0; y < height(); ++y) {
if (contains(x,y)) a++;
}
}
return a;
}
The area method will work for any shape, but is highly inefficient. Subclassers are encouraged to provide a suitable implementation, but if there is none available, they still can explicitely call the base class's method
Pure virtual means "child must override".
So:
struct A{ virtual void foo(){}; };
struct B:A{ virtual void foo()=0; };
struct C:B{ virtual void foo(){}; };
struct D:C{ virtual void foo()=0; };
void D::foo(){};
struct E:D{ virtual void foo(){D::foo();}; };
A has a virtual foo.
B makes it abstract. Before making an instance, derived types must implement it now.
C implements it.
D makes it abstract, and adds an imllementation.
E implements it by calling D's implementation.
A, C and E can have instances created. B and D cannot.
The technique of abstract with implementation can be used to provide a partial or inefficient implementation that derived types can call explicitly when they want to use it, but do not get "by default" because that would be ill advised.
Another intersting use case is where the parent interface is in flux, and tue code base is large. It has a fully functional implementation. Children who use the default must repeat the signature and forward explicitly to it. Those that want to override simply override.
When the base class sigrnature changes, the code will fail to compile unless every child either explicitly calls the default or properly overrides. Prior to the override keyword this was the only way to ensure you did not accidentally create a new virtual function instead of overriding a parent, and it remains the only way where the policy is enforced in the parent type.
Please note that you cannot instantiate an object with pure virtual methods.
Try to instantiate:
C c;
with VC2015, there is an error as expected:
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): error C2259: 'C': cannot instantiate abstract class
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): note: due to following members:
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(12): note: 'void C::f(void)': is abstract
1>f:\dev\src\consoleapplication1\consoleapplication1.cpp(6): note: see declaration of 'C::f'
To answer your question:
The mechanisms only declares the function to be pure virtual, but there is still the virtual function table and the baseclass. It will avoid you instanciate Baseclass (C), but does not avoid using it:
struct D : public C { virtual void f(); };
void D::f() { printf("Baseclass C::f(): "); C::f(); }
...
D d;
d.f();
The destructor must be defined, even if it is pure virtual. If you don't define the destructor the compiler will generate one.
Edit: you can't leave destructor declared without define, will cause link error.
You can anyway call the body of the function from derived classes.
You can implement the body of a pure virtual function to provide a default behavior, and at the same time you want that the designer of the derived class use that function explicitly.
What is the purpose of the final keyword in C++11 for functions? I understand it prevents function overriding by derived classes, but if this is the case, then isn't it enough to declare as non-virtual your final functions? Is there another thing I'm missing here?
What you are missing, as idljarn already mentioned in a comment is that if you are overriding a function from a base class, then you cannot possibly mark it as non-virtual:
struct base {
virtual void f();
};
struct derived : base {
void f() final; // virtual as it overrides base::f
};
struct mostderived : derived {
//void f(); // error: cannot override!
};
It is to prevent a class from being inherited. From Wikipedia:
C++11 also adds the ability to prevent inheriting from classes or simply preventing overriding methods in derived classes. This is done with the special identifier final. For example:
struct Base1 final { };
struct Derived1 : Base1 { }; // ill-formed because the class Base1
// has been marked final
It is also used to mark a virtual function so as to prevent it from being overridden in the derived classes:
struct Base2 {
virtual void f() final;
};
struct Derived2 : Base2 {
void f(); // ill-formed because the virtual function Base2::f has
// been marked final
};
Wikipedia further makes an interesting point:
Note that neither override nor final are language keywords. They are technically identifiers; they only gain special meaning when used in those specific contexts. In any other location, they can be valid identifiers.
That means, the following is allowed:
int const final = 0; // ok
int const override = 1; // ok
"final" also allows a compiler optimization to bypass the indirect call:
class IAbstract
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
};
class CDerived : public IAbstract
{
void DoSomething() final { m_x = 1 ; }
void Blah( void ) { DoSomething(); }
};
with "final", the compiler can call CDerived::DoSomething() directly from within Blah(), or even inline. Without it, it has to generate an indirect call inside of Blah() because Blah() could be called inside a derived class which has overridden DoSomething().
Nothing to add to the semantic aspects of "final".
But I'd like to add to chris green's comment that "final" might become a very important compiler optimization technique in the not so distant future. Not only in the simple case he mentioned, but also for more complex real-world class hierarchies which can be "closed" by "final", thus allowing compilers to generate more efficient dispatching code than with the usual vtable approach.
One key disadvantage of vtables is that for any such virtual object (assuming 64-bits on a typical Intel CPU) the pointer alone eats up 25% (8 of 64 bytes) of a cache line. In the kind of applications I enjoy to write, this hurts very badly. (And from my experience it is the #1 argument against C++ from a purist performance point of view, i.e. by C programmers.)
In applications which require extreme performance, which is not so unusual for C++, this might indeed become awesome, not requiring to workaround this problem manually in C style or weird Template juggling.
This technique is known as Devirtualization. A term worth remembering. :-)
There is a great recent speech by Andrei Alexandrescu which pretty well explains how you can workaround such situations today and how "final" might be part of solving similar cases "automatically" in the future (discussed with listeners):
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/GoingNative/2013/Writing-Quick-Code-in-Cpp-Quickly
Final cannot be applied to non-virtual functions.
error: only virtual member functions can be marked 'final'
It wouldn't be very meaningful to be able to mark a non-virtual method as 'final'. Given
struct A { void foo(); };
struct B : public A { void foo(); };
A * a = new B;
a -> foo(); // this will call A :: foo anyway, regardless of whether there is a B::foo
a->foo() will always call A::foo.
But, if A::foo was virtual, then B::foo would override it. This might be undesirable, and hence it would make sense to make the virtual function final.
The question is though, why allow final on virtual functions. If you have a deep hierarchy:
struct A { virtual void foo(); };
struct B : public A { virtual void foo(); };
struct C : public B { virtual void foo() final; };
struct D : public C { /* cannot override foo */ };
Then the final puts a 'floor' on how much overriding can be done. Other classes can extend A and B and override their foo, but it a class extends C then it is not allowed.
So it probably doesn't make sense to make the 'top-level' foo final, but it might make sense lower down.
(I think though, there is room to extend the words final and override to non-virtual members. They would have a different meaning though.)
A use-case for the 'final' keyword that I am fond of is as follows:
// This pure abstract interface creates a way
// for unit test suites to stub-out Foo objects
class FooInterface
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() = 0;
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() = 0;
};
// Implement Non-Virtual Interface Pattern in FooBase using final
// (Alternatively implement the Template Pattern in FooBase using final)
class FooBase : public FooInterface
{
public:
virtual void DoSomething() final { DoFirst(); DoSomethingImpl(); DoLast(); }
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() { /* left for derived classes to customize */ }
void DoFirst(); // no derived customization allowed here
void DoLast(); // no derived customization allowed here either
};
// Feel secure knowing that unit test suites can stub you out at the FooInterface level
// if necessary
// Feel doubly secure knowing that your children cannot violate your Template Pattern
// When DoSomething is called from a FooBase * you know without a doubt that
// DoFirst will execute before DoSomethingImpl, and DoLast will execute after.
class FooDerived : public FooBase
{
private:
virtual void DoSomethingImpl() {/* customize DoSomething at this location */}
};
final adds an explicit intent to not have your function overridden, and will cause a compiler error should this be violated:
struct A {
virtual int foo(); // #1
};
struct B : A {
int foo();
};
As the code stands, it compiles, and B::foo overrides A::foo. B::foo is also virtual, by the way. However, if we change #1 to virtual int foo() final, then this is a compiler error, and we are not allowed to override A::foo any further in derived classes.
Note that this does not allow us to "reopen" a new hierarchy, i.e. there's no way to make B::foo a new, unrelated function that can be independently at the head of a new virtual hierarchy. Once a function is final, it can never be declared again in any derived class.
The final keyword allows you to declare a virtual method, override it N times, and then mandate that 'this can no longer be overridden'. It would be useful in restricting use of your derived class, so that you can say "I know my super class lets you override this, but if you want to derive from me, you can't!".
struct Foo
{
virtual void DoStuff();
}
struct Bar : public Foo
{
void DoStuff() final;
}
struct Babar : public Bar
{
void DoStuff(); // error!
}
As other posters pointed out, it cannot be applied to non-virtual functions.
One purpose of the final keyword is to prevent accidental overriding of a method. In my example, DoStuff() may have been a helper function that the derived class simply needs to rename to get correct behavior. Without final, the error would not be discovered until testing.
Final keyword in C++ when added to a function, prevents it from being overridden by derived classes.
Also when added to a class prevents inheritance of any type.
Consider the following example which shows use of final specifier. This program fails in compilation.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Base
{
public:
virtual void myfun() final
{
cout << "myfun() in Base";
}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
void myfun()
{
cout << "myfun() in Derived\n";
}
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
Base &b = d;
b.myfun();
return 0;
}
Also:
#include <iostream>
class Base final
{
};
class Derived : public Base
{
};
int main()
{
Derived d;
return 0;
}
Final keyword have the following purposes in C++
If you make a virtual method in base class as final, it cannot be overridden in the derived class. It will show a compilation error:
class Base {
public:
virtual void display() final {
cout << "from base" << endl;
}
};
class Child : public Base {
public:
void display() {
cout << "from child" << endl;
}
};
int main() {
Base *b = new Child();
b->display();
cin.get();
return 0;
}
If we make a class as final, it cannot be inherited by its child classes:
class Base final {
public:
void displayBase() {
cout << "from base" << endl;
}
};
class Child :public Base {
public:
void displayChild() {
cout << "from child" << endl;
}
};
Note: the main difference with final keyword in Java is ,
a) final is not actually a keyword in C++.
you can have a variable named as final in C++
b) In Java, final keyword is always added before the class keyword.
Supplement to Mario Knezović 's answer:
class IA
{
public:
virtual int getNum() const = 0;
};
class BaseA : public IA
{
public:
inline virtual int getNum() const final {return ...};
};
class ImplA : public BaseA {...};
IA* pa = ...;
...
ImplA* impla = static_cast<ImplA*>(pa);
//the following line should cause compiler to use the inlined function BaseA::getNum(),
//instead of dynamic binding (via vtable or something).
//any class/subclass of BaseA will benefit from it
int n = impla->getNum();
The above code shows the theory, but not actually tested on real compilers. Much appreciated if anyone paste a disassembled output.
I know why I want to use private virtual functions, but how exactly can I implement them?
For example:
class Base{
[...]
private:
virtual void func() = 0;
[...]
};
class Derived1: public Base{
void func()
{ //short implementation is ok here
}
};
class Derived2: public Base{
void func(); //long implementation elsewhere (in cpp file)
};
[...]
void Derived2::func()
{ //long implementation
}
The first version is ok but not always possible.
Isn't the second version simply name hiding? How do you define the Base::func() of Derived2, if you cannot do it within the class declaration of Dereived2?
Thanks
How do you define the Base::func() of Derived2, if you cannot do it within the class declaration of Dereived2?
You don't define "Base::func() of Derived2" (whatever this might be), you define Derived2::func(). This compiles just fine for me:
#include <iostream>
class Base{
private:
virtual void foo() = 0;
public:
void bar() {foo();}
};
class Derived: public Base{
void foo();
};
void Derived::foo()
{
std::cout << "inside of 'Derived1::foo()'\n";
}
int main()
{
Derived d;
Base& b = d;
b.bar();
return 0;
}
What's your problem with it?
Polymorphism and accessibility are two separate concepts. You can always override a base class' private virtual function, but you won't be able to call the base class version from anywhere but the base class itself. Also, C++ FAQ Lite has a pretty lengthy entry on the subject.
For what I understand here, you're trying to do polymorphism.
There are 4 rules that you must follow to achieve polymorphism.
You must inherit from the base class.
Your functions must have the same name in every class.
You need the virtual keyword in front of every function, and the override keyword at the end of the child's fonctions.
You have to use a pointer on the main class, and use the "new" keyword to define it as a child type.
See this awesome wiki page for code example.
Hope this is what you wanted. ^^
Yours truly,
SeargX
I'm getting a pointer to a base class (which is actually a pointer to some derived class). Then I want to call a function on that derived class, but I don't know which one it is.
class Base
{
};
class DerivedOne : public Base
{
public:
void functionA()
{ int x = 0; }
};
class DerivedTwo : public Base
{
public:
void functionA()
{ int x = 0; }
};
int main()
{
Base* derivedTwoPtr = new DerivedTwo();
reinterpret_cast<DerivedOne*>(derivedTwoPtr)->functionA();
return 0;
}
This works as I want, but I have to say it looks rather dodgy. Is it defined behavior? If not, is there a legal way to dynamically resolve this?
Hey, don't do that. That's what virtual methods are for.
class Base
{
public:
virtual void functionA()=0;
};
class DerivedOne : public Base
{
public:
virtual void functionA()
{ int x = 0; }
};
class DerivedTwo : public Base
{
public:
virtual void functionA()
{ int x = 0; }
};
int main()
{
Base* derivedTwoPtr = new DerivedTwo();
derivedTwoPtr->functionA();
return 0;
}
Just use virtual functions. That's what they are intended for. Your base class should look like
class Base
{
virtual void functionA() = 0;
};
where the = 0 bit is optional. If present the virtual function is known as a pure virtual function and enforces each subclass of Base to implement the function.
Now if you call functionA through a Base pointer you will get the method appropriate to whichever subclass the pointer really points to.
is there a legal way to dynamically
resolve this?
dynamic_cast can be used to cast to a specific derived class and invoke derived class methods. But in your case the best would be to provide a virtual method in Base class and provide different implementation for the virtual method in derived classes.
You basically answered your own question here:
Casting to one class and calling
function from sibling class?
This works as I want, but I have to
say it looks rather dodgy. Is it
defined behavior? If not, is there a
legal way to dynamically resolve this?
In short:
if (DerivedOne* one=dynamic_cast<DerivedOne*>(BasePtr))
one->functionA();
else if (DerivedTwo* two=dynamic_cast<DerivedTwo*>(BasePtr))
two->functionA();
But yeah, like vava said, don't do that.