I understand that whenever you have a polymorphic base class, the base class should define a virtual destructor. So that when a base-class pointer to a derived-class object is deleted, it will call the destructor of the derived class first. Correct me if i am wrong here.
also, if the base-class destructor were to be non-virtual, it would be undefined behavior to delete a baseclass pointer to a derived object. Correct me if i am wrong aswell.
so my question is: Why is it exactly, that when the base-class destructor is non-virtual, the object will not be destroyed correctly?
i am assuming this is because virtual functions have some kind of table that is memorized and consulted whenever a virtual function is called. And the compiler knows that when an object is supposed to be deleted, it should call the derived destructor first.
is my assumption correct?
Answer
If at the point where you delete the object the static type of the variable is the bas type, than the destructor of the base type will be called, but the destructor of the sub class won't be called (as it is not virtual).
As a result the resources allocated by the base class will be freed, but the resources allocated by the sub class won't.
Thus the object won't be destructed correctly.
You are correct about that table: it is called a virtual method table or "vtable". But the result of the destructor being non-virtual is not that the destructors are not called in the correct order, but that the destructor(s) of the sub class(es) are not called at all!
No comments:
Post a Comment