Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

If classes with virtual functions are implemented with vtables, how is a class with no virtual functions implemented?

In particular, wouldn't there have to be some kind of function pointer in place anyway?

like image 958
Brian R. Bondy Avatar asked Sep 19 '08 12:09

Brian R. Bondy


People also ask

What is the difference between virtual functions and Vtables?

For every class that contains virtual functions, the compiler constructs a virtual table, a.k.a vtable. The vtable contains an entry for each virtual function accessible by the class and stores a pointer to its definition. Only the most specific function definition callable by the class is stored in the vtable.

What happens when we call virtual function in non virtual function?

So polymorphic behaviour works even when a virtual function is called inside a non-virtual function. The output can be guessed from the fact that the function to be called is decided at run-time using the vptr and vtable.

What happens when a virtual function has a virtual function in it?

Whenever the class has at least one virtual function. Having virtual functions indicate that a class is meant to act as an interface to derived classes, and when it is, an object of a derived class may be destroyed through a pointer to the base. For example: class Base {

How are Vtables implemented?

Common implementation: Each object has a pointer to a vtable; the class owns the table. The construction magic simply consists of updating the vtable pointer in the derived ctor, after the base ctor has finished.


1 Answers

I think that the phrase "classes with virtual functions are implemented with vtables" is misleading you.

The phrase makes it sound like classes with virtual functions are implemented "in way A" and classes without virtual functions are implemented "in way B".

In reality, classes with virtual functions, in addition to being implemented as classes are, they also have a vtable. Another way to see it is that "'vtables' implement the 'virtual function' part of a class".

More details on how they both work:

All classes (with virtual or non-virtual methods) are structs. The only difference between a struct and a class in C++ is that, by default, members are public in structs and private in classes. Because of that, I'll use the term class here to refer to both structs and classes. Remember, they are almost synonyms!

Data Members

Classes are (as are structs) just blocks of contiguous memory where each member is stored in sequence. Note that some times there will be gaps between members for CPU architectural reasons, so the block can be larger than the sum of its parts.

Methods

Methods or "member functions" are an illusion. In reality, there is no such thing as a "member function". A function is always just a sequence of machine code instructions stored somewhere in memory. To make a call, the processor jumps to that position of memory and starts executing. You could say that all methods and functions are 'global', and any indication of the contrary is a convenient illusion enforced by the compiler.

Obviously, a method acts like it belongs to a specific object, so clearly there is more going on. To tie a particular call of a method (a function) to a specific object, every member method has a hidden argument that is a pointer to the object in question. The member is hidden in that you don't add it to your C++ code yourself, but there is nothing magical about it -- it's very real. When you say this:

void CMyThingy::DoSomething(int arg);
{
    // do something
}

The compiler really does this:

void CMyThingy_DoSomething(CMyThingy* this, int arg)
{
    /do something
}

Finally, when you write this:

myObj.doSomething(aValue);

the compiler says:

CMyThingy_DoSomething(&myObj, aValue);

No need for function pointers anywhere! The compiler knows already which method you are calling so it calls it directly.

Static methods are even simpler. They don't have a this pointer, so they are implemented exactly as you write them.

That's is! The rest is just convenient syntax sugaring: The compiler knows which class a method belongs to, so it makes sure it doesn't let you call the function without specifying which one. It also uses that knowledge to translates myItem to this->myItem when it's unambiguous to do so.

(yeah, that's right: member access in a method is always done indirectly via a pointer, even if you don't see one)

(Edit: Removed last sentence and posted separately so it can be criticized separately)

like image 71
Euro Micelli Avatar answered Oct 21 '22 05:10

Euro Micelli