Does a pure-virtual object have a pointer to the vtbl?
(that probably points to NULL?)
thanks, i'm a little bit confused with all the virtual mechanism.
Don't worry about it. Virtual tables are an implementation detail, and aren't even guaranteed to exist. The more you worry about how it might be done, the less you learn about the actual language.
That said, yes. A concrete class will then set that pointer to point to the correct virtual table.
There isn't technically such a thing as a 'pure-virtual object'. I assume you mean an object with pure-virtual methods? But you can't actually create such an object because it would be abstract and the compiler would complain.
Having said that, while the object is being constructed it is briefly an instance of the abstract class before becoming an instance of the derived class. It will in such a case have a virtual table set the functions it defines. It will probably have NULL for the pure virtual methods. If you try calling that the program will crash.
You can try this out by calling virtual methods in the constructor. You'll find they invoke the base class version if you call the methods in the base class. If you call a pure virtual method it'll crash. (In some cases the compiler will figure out what you are doing and complain instead).
The take home is:
Don't call virtual functions in your constructor, its just likely to be confusing. In fact, in most cases it is best if your constructor just sets its internal status up and does not do anything too complicated.
Related
It's true that calling virtual function in constructor and destructor is not a good practice, and should be avoided. It's because virtual functions are affected by subclasses, but in constructing or destructing phase subclasses are not yet constructed(in constructing) or already destructed(in destructing).
However what happens if a virtual final function is invoked in constructor or destructor? I assume that there should be no problem, since it's not logically wrong.
Calling virtual function in constructor and destructor is forbidden because accessing to subclass' variable, not initialized yet, can occur in overridden version of virtual function, which is declared in the subclass.
While virtual final function is not, it's final and there's no way to access to subclass' variables.
But this is my assumption, and there could be any more reasons that calling virtual function in constructor or destructor is not reasonable.
So, in conclusion,
Is calling virtual final function in constructing/destructing phase is allowed in C++ standard?
If so, is it widely implemented to most C++ compilers?
If it's not, is there any reason for that?
Is calling virtual final function in constructing/destructing phase is
allowed in C++ standard?
Calling a virtual function during construction/destruction is well defined and completely legal except in the case of pure virtual functions.
Calling virtual function in constructor and destructor is forbidden
I don't know (nor cares) who says it's "bad" or "forbidden" from a stylistic point of view, code maintenance point of view... The ability to maintain code depends first on knowing the relevant language and tools well; not knowing what virtual calls do during these phases (*) will lead to misunderstand on the part of the maintainers which is fixed by selecting more experienced maintainers and not dumbing down the programming style.
(*) which aren't technically part of the "lifetime" of the object, which isn't even a very useful concept as objects are usable and used in their constructor (before their lifetime has started) in any non trivial program (I think the standard should simply suppress this unneeded concept).
accessing to subclass' variable, not initialized yet, can occur in
overridden version of virtual function, which is declared in the
subclass.
It can't. During construction of a base class subobject B (say by constructor B::B()), the type of the object is being constructed is by definition B.
overridden version of virtual function, which is declared in the
subclass.
No, there is no existing subclass object at that point, so there is no overriding.
While virtual final function is not, it's final and there's no way to
access to subclass' variables.
It makes no difference.
The dynamic type of a polymorphic object is established by a constructor, after the constructors for base classes and before constructing members.
If so, is it widely implemented to most C++ compilers?
In practice all compilers implement setting the dynamic type of an object by changing the one or many vtable pointers to point to appropriate vtables for the type; that is done as part of construction.
It means that during construction, the vptr value changes as derived objects are constructed.
First, the rule is: "Do not directly or indirectly invoke a virtual function from a constructor or destructor that attempts to call into the object under construction or destruction." That's not opinion. That's the SEI CERT coding standard. Original document at:
https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/downloads/secure-coding/assets/sei-cert-cpp-coding-standard-2016-v01.pdf
and a link to the relevant rule OOP50-CPP at:
https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/cplusplus/OOP50-CPP.+Do+not+invoke+virtual+functions+from+constructors+or+destructors.
In answer to the original question, there are several exceptions to this rule. One of those, OOP50-CPP-EX2, is if the function or class is marked as final. Then it cannot be overridden by a derived class. You can also explicitly qualify the function call.
And yes, final is widely implemented.
What is the performance difference between calling a virtual function from a derived class pointer directly vs from a base class pointer to the same derived class?
In the derived pointer case, will the call be statically bound, or dynamically bound? I think it'll be dynamically bound because there's no guarantee the derived pointer isn't actually pointing to a further derived class. Would the situation change if I have the derived class directly by value (not through pointer or reference)? So the 3 cases:
base pointer to derived
derived pointer to derived
derived by value
I'm concerned about performance because the code will be run on a microcontroller.
Demonstrating code
struct Base {
// virtual destructor left out for brevity
virtual void method() = 0;
};
struct Derived : public Base {
// implementation here
void method() {
}
}
// ... in source file
// call virtual method from base class pointer, guaranteed vtable lookup
Base* base = new Derived;
base->method();
// call virtual method from derived class pointer, any difference?
Derived* derived = new Derived;
derived->method();
// call virtual method from derived class value
Derived derivedValue;
derived.method();
In theory, the only C++ syntax that makes a difference is a member function call that uses qualified member name. In terms of your class definitions that would be
derived->Derived::method();
This call ignores the dynamic type of the object and goes directly to Derived::method(), i.e. it's bound statically. This is only possible for calling methods declared in the class itself or in one of its ancestor classes.
Everything else is a regular virtual function call, which is resolved in accordance with the dynamic type of the object used in the call, i.e. it is bound dynamically.
In practice, compilers will strive to optimize the code and replace dynamically-bound calls with statically-bound calls in contexts where the dynamic type of the object is known at compile time. For example
Derived derivedValue;
derivedValue.method();
will typically produce a statically-bound call in virtually every modern compiler, even though the language specification does not provide any special treatment for this situation.
Also, virtual method calls made directly from constructors and destructors are typically compiled into statically-bound calls.
Of course, a smart compiler might be able to bind the call statically in a much greater variety of contexts. For example, both
Base* base = new Derived;
base->method();
and
Derived* derived = new Derived;
derived->method();
can be seen by the compiler as trivial situations that easily allow for statically-bound calls.
Virtual functions must be compiled to work as if they were always called virtually. If your compiler compiles a virtual call as a static call, that's an optimization that must satisfy this as-if rule.
From this, it follows that the compiler must be able to prove the exact type of the object in question. And there are some valid ways in which it can do this:
If the compiler sees the creation of the object (the new expression or the automatic variable from which the address is taken) and can prove that that creation is actually the source of the current pointer value, that gives it the precise dynamic type it needs. All your examples fall into this category.
While a constructor runs, the type of the object is exactly the class containing the running constructor. So any virtual function call made in a constructor can be resolved statically.
Likewise, while a destructor runs, the type of the object is exactly the class containing the running destructor. Again, any virtual function call can be resolved statically.
Afaik, these are all the cases that allow the compiler to convert a dynamic dispatch into a static call.
All of these are optimizations, though, the compiler may decide to perform the runtime vtable lookup anyway. But good optimizing compilers should be able to detect all three cases.
There should be no difference between the first two cases, since the very idea of virtual functions is to call always the actual implementation. Leaving compiler optimisations aside (which in theory could optimise all virtual function calls away if you construct the object in the same compilation unit and there is no way the pointer can be altered in between), the second call must be implemented as a indirect (virtual) call as well, since there could be a third class inheriting from Derived and implementing that function as well. I would assume that the third call will not be virtual, since the compiler knows the actual type already at compile time. Actually you could make sure of this by not defining the function as virtual, if you know you will always do the call on the derived class directly.
For really lightweight code running on a small microcontroller I would recommend avoiding defining functions as virtual at all. Usually there is no runtime abstraction required. If you write a library and need some kind of abstraction, you can maybe work with templates instead (which give you some compile-time abstraction).
At least on PC CPUs I often find virtual calls one of the most expensive indirections you can have (probably because branch prediction is more difficult). Sometimes one can also transform the indirection to the data level, e.g. you keep one generic function which operates on different data which is indirected with pointers to the actual implementation. Of course this will work only in some very specific cases.
At run-time.
BUT: Performance as compared to what? It isn't valid to compare a virtual function call to a non-virtual function call. You need to compare it to a non-virtual function call plus an if, a switch, an indirection, or some other means of providing the same function. If the function doesn't embody a choice among implementations, i.e. doesn't need to be virtual, don't make it virtual.
Regarding this post:
For implementations that use vtable, the answer is: Yes, usually. You
might think that vtable isn't required for abstract classes because
the derived class will have its own vtable, but it is needed during
construction: While the base class is being constructed, it sets the
vtable pointer to its own vtable. Later when the derived class
constructor is entered, it will use its own vtable instead.
I'm assuming the answer is correct, but I don't quite get it. Why is the vtable needed exactly for construction?
Because the standard says so.
[class.cdtor]/4
When a virtual function is called directly or indirectly from a
constructor or from a destructor, including during the construction or
destruction of the class's non-static data members, and the object to
which the call applies is the object (call it x) under construction or
destruction, the function called is the final overrider in the
constructor's or destructor's class and not one overriding it in a
more-derived class.
The rationale is that first the base class is constructed, then the derived one. If a virtual function is called inside the base class' constructor, it would be bad to call the derived class, since the derived class isn't initialized yet.
Remember that an abstract class may have non-pure virtual functions. Also, for debugging purposes, it is good to point pure virtual functions to a debugging trap (e.g. MSVC calls _purecall()).
If all virtual functions are pure, in MSVC you can omit the vtable with __declspec(novtable). If you use a lot of interface classes, this can lead to significant savings because you omit vfptr initialization. But if you accidentally call a pure virtual function, you'll get a hard to debug access violation.
vtables are implementation issues in C++, they are not part of the standard.
vtables are used for both dynamic dispatching of methods and for RTTI. While a nullptr vtable pointer would work for dynamic dispatching (as the vtable pointer is only used when you have an instance of that type) in a pure-abstract class, a dynamic_cast to a pure abstract class is legal, and it may require that the vtable itself exist.
Designers of the C++ implementation and ABI might have simply given the purely abstract class (a class with no implemented methods, just =0 ones) a vtable to make their implementation simpler. Every class has a vtable, and the vtable pointer gets set during construction of that class. Code can then rely on the fact that the vtable pointer exists and does not have to check for null every time. Code doesn't have to ask questions like "is this a purely abstract class".
For a non-pure abstract class (where some methods have implementations but some are pure virtual), during construction/destruction you can have defined (if unexpected) behavior that involves invoking exactly this class's version of a given method, and not the base class method or an inherited method. For this to work, you need to have a vtable set up. With a pure abstract class, there is no defined result of such a call, so the vtable is redundant, but for an abstract class that isn't totally abstract this does not hold.
When your class has a pure virtual function, that does not mean you cannot also have an implementation for it (!!). So that implies you can have an abstract class, which is also fully implemented. The constructor of your abstract class has to be able to call all functions - even the pure virtual ones, because of this point - that exist for it so far.
If you'd have substituted the client one, you'd get different behaviour for the base class constructor depending on the deriving class - not a great idea, so that's not allowed. You could put in place no vtable and statically resolve all function calls - that works, but it implies handling the constructor specially compared to all other functions and requires inlining all other functions to do this (since a function called from the constructor may also call a virtual etc.) - not very practical.
So it just implements a vtable for the constructor and destructor to use during construction and destruction. It allows you to use typeid and dynamic_cast in the c'tor and d'tor with the predictable result and get reliable behaviour out of the virtual functions you have. No alternative solution would do that.
C++03 5.3.5.3
In the first alternative (delete
object), if the static type of the
operand is different from its dynamic
type, the static type shall be a base
class of the operand’s dynamic type
and the static type shall have a
virtual destructor or the behavior is
undefined.
This is the theory. The question, however, is a practical one. What if the derived class adds no data members?
struct Base{
//some members
//no virtual functions, no virtual destructor
};
struct Derived:Base{
//no more data members
//possibly some more nonvirtual member functions
};
int main(){
Base* p = new Derived;
delete p; //UB according to the quote above
}
The question: is there any existing implementation on which this would really be dangerous?
If so, could you please describe how the internals are implemented in that implementation which makes this code crash/leak or whatever? I beg you to believe, I swear that I have no intentions to rely on this behavior :)
One example is if you provide a custom operator new in struct Derived. Obviously calling wrong operator delete will likely produce devastating results.
I know of no implementation on which the above would be dangerous, and I think it unlikely that there ever will be such an implementation.
Here's why:
"undefined behaviour" is a catch-all phrase meaning (as everyone knows), anything could happen. The code could eat your lunch, or do nothing at all.
However, compiler writers are sane people, and there's a difference between undefined behaviour at compile-time, and undefined behaviour at run-time. If I was writing a compiler for an implementation where the code snippet above was dangerous, it would be easy to catch and prevent at compile time. I can says it's a compilation error (or warning, maybe): Error 666: Cannot derive from class with non-virtual destructor.
I think I'm allowed to do that, because the compiler's behaviour in this case is not defined by the standard.
I can't answer for specific compilers, you'd have to ask the compiler writers. Even if a compiler works now, it might not do so in the next version so I would not rely on it.
Do you need this behaviour?
Let me guess that
You want to be able to have a base class pointer without seeing the derived class and
Not have a v-table in Base and
Be able to clean up in the base class pointer.
If those are your requirements it is possible to do, with boost::shared_ptr or your own adaptation.
At the point you pass the pointer you pass in a boost::shared_ptr with an actual "Derived" underneath. When it is deleted it will use the destructor that was created when the pointer was created which uses the correct delete. You should probably give Base a protected destructor though to be safe.
Note that there still is a v-table but it is in the shared pointer deleter base not in the class itself.
To create your own adaptation, if you use boost::function and boost::bind you don't need a v-table at all. You just get your boost::bind to wrap the underlying Derived* and the function calls delete on it.
In your particular case, where you do not have any data member declared in the derived class and if you do not have any custom new/delete operators (as mentioned by Sharptooth), you may not have any problems ,but do you guarantee that no user will ever derive your class? If you do not make your Base's destructor virtual, there is no way for any of the classes derived from Derived to call their destructors in case the objects of derived classes are used via a Base pointer.
Also, there is a general notion that if you have virtual functions in your base class, the destructor should be made virtual. So better not surprise anybody :)
I totally agree with 'Roddy'.
Unless you're writing the code for perverted compiler designed for a non-existing virtual machine just to prove that so-called undefined behavior can bite - there's no problem.
The point of 'sharptooth' about custom new/delete operators is inapplicable here. Because virtual d'tor and won't solve in any way the problem he/she describes.
However it's a good point though. It means that the model where you provide a virtual d'tor and by such enable the polymorphic object creating/deletion is defective by design.
A more correct design is to equip such objects with a virtual function that does two things at once: call its (correct) destructor, and also free its memory the way it should be freed. In simple words - destroy the object by the appropriate means, which are known for the object itself.
If we write virtual function it adds a vtable in object of that class. Is it true for virtual destructor too ? Is vtable used to implement virtualness of destructor
Yes. Some information is needed to allow the right destructor to be called when the object is deleted via a base class pointer. Whether that information is a small integer index or a pointer doesn't matter (although dynamic linkage probably implies that it's a pointer). Naturally, that information needs to be adjacent to (inside) the pointed-to object.
Adding a virtual method of any kind, including a destructor, to a class that had none before, will increase sizeof(class).
I don't believe that the C++ standard requires any particular mechanism for producing the correct behavior, but yes, that's a typical implementation. A class with at least 1 virtual function has a table of (virtual) function pointers, the destructor being one of them, if it's marked virtual.
Yes it is. Sorry I don't have a definitive reference to back up my assertion. But how else would you get different behavior when using just a pointer to the object?
Yes. Virtual destructor is like any other virtual method. Vtable entry will get added.
It is treated like any other normal function and will be added to the vtable.
Take a look at http://geneura.ugr.es/~jmerelo/c++-faq/virtual-functions.html#faq-20.5