Skip to main content

Always define virtual non-pure methods

The ISO C++ Standard specifies that all virtual methods of a class that are not pure-virtual must be defined and compilers are not bound (by standards) to warn you if you don't follow this rule. Based on this assumption, GCC will only emit the implicitly defined constructors, the assignment operator, the destructor and the virtual table of a class in the translation unit that defines its first such non-inline method.

Therefore, if you fail to define this particular method, the linker complains. In case of gcc and ld (linker on Linux), the linker gives out an error message saying "undefined reference to `vtable for function_name' ". This error message is quite misleading. The solution is to ensure that all virtual methods that are not pure are defined. An exception to this rule is a pure-virtual destructor, which must be defined (empty body) in any case. Ch. 12, [class.dtor]/7.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Ch 12 of which book
Sumant said…
Ch. 12 of C++98 standards official draft
Astonshing blog. I relished in the site and you
know I will be going to it again! Surfing the internet
hepls me to find blogs that arfe just as good.
Please proceed to my blog when you find the time.
dat-girl said…
Sensational blog. I took pleasure in the site and I
will go back! Surfing online for blogs like this one
is worth my time.
You got me! I will check out your 1800contacts coupon code blog a.s.a.p!
outa-time said…
I surf the web looking for blogs like this one.
Your site was on point and will be back again! Awesome
blog.
Check out my coupon 1800contacts blog, you won't be sorry!
stunned said…
Fine blog. I found your site suitable for another
visit! And when I'm able to surf the web, I look for
blogs as great as your work.
I'm looking at the possibility of checking your coupon codes 1800contacts blog.
I surf the web looking for blogs like this one.
Your site was on point and will be back again! Awesome
blog.
Look who checking out my 1800contacts coupon codes blog?
Captivate blog. I surf the web for blogs this
nature.The site are wonderful and will be returned to
again!
My 1800contacts coupon codes blog, is something you need to peep out!
sceptic said…
Unique blog my friend, I can hardly wait to vist
this site again. I just worship the site its comes
from! Believe me in my extra time I'm consistently
looking up blogs like this.
I will give you access to jump to my 1800contacts web coupon code blog.
Excellent blog. Your site was great and will be
finding it again!  I surf the net for blogs like
yours.
Click on my michael jackson plastic surgery blog before its to late.
Excellent blog. It was so great and I bet I will
go back to it! I get to look online for blogs like
yours is a blessing.
Look who checking out my atlanta plastic surgery blog?
Exciting blog. Your site was amazing and will be
back again! I never get tired of looking for blogs
just like this one.
Go and click my plastic surgery las vegas blog.

Popular Content

Multi-dimensional arrays in C++11

What new can be said about multi-dimensional arrays in C++? As it turns out, quite a bit! With the advent of C++11, we get new standard library class std::array. We also get new language features, such as template aliases and variadic templates. So I'll talk about interesting ways in which they come together. It all started with a simple question of how to define a multi-dimensional std::array. It is a great example of deceptively simple things. Are the following the two arrays identical except that one is native and the other one is std::array? int native[3][4]; std::array<std::array<int, 3>, 4> arr; No! They are not. In fact, arr is more like an int[4][3]. Note the difference in the array subscripts. The native array is an array of 3 elements where every element is itself an array of 4 integers. 3 rows and 4 columns. If you want a std::array with the same layout, what you really need is: std::array<std::array<int, 4>, 3> arr; That's quite annoying for

Unit Testing C++ Templates and Mock Injection Using Traits

Unit testing your template code comes up from time to time. (You test your templates, right?) Some templates are easy to test. No others. Sometimes it's not clear how to about injecting mock code into the template code that's under test. I've seen several reasons why code injection becomes challenging. Here I've outlined some examples below with roughly increasing code injection difficulty. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor Template accepts a type argument. Makes a copy of the constructor argument or simply does not take one Template accepts a type argument and instantiates multiple interrelated templates without virtual functions Lets start with the easy ones. Template accepts a type argument and an object of the same type by reference in constructor This one appears straight-forward because the unit test simply instantiates the template under test with a mock type. Some assertion might be tested in

Want speed? Use constexpr meta-programming!

It's official: C++11 has two meta-programming languages embedded in it! One is based on templates and other one using constexpr . Templates have been extensively used for meta-programming in C++03. C++11 now gives you one more option of writing compile-time meta-programs using constexpr . The capabilities differ, however. The meta-programming language that uses templates was discovered accidently and since then countless techniques have been developed. It is a pure functional language which allows you to manipulate compile-time integral literals and types but not floating point literals. Most people find the syntax of template meta-programming quite abominable because meta-functions must be implemented as structures and nested typedefs. Compile-time performance is also a pain point for this language feature. The generalized constant expressions (constexpr for short) feature allows C++11 compiler to peek into the implementation of a function (even classes) and perform optimization