C ++虚拟析构函数

Question

If I have a base class and a derived class, and I delcare the destructor in the parent virtual, but instantiate an object of type subclass, when destroyed it will invoke the parent destructor right(since virtual)? If I also declare a destructor in the derived class, will it call both destructors (base and derived). Thanks in advance :-).

The second part to my question is regarding the first. Why does the base class destructor need to be declared virtual. Don't constrcutors cycle up the hiearchy. They don't share the same name, so where's the need for it? Shouldn't it work the same for destrucotrs, or by default is only one called? Also does through late binding is it able to detect all the classes and object is made of?

EDIT: My question is not just about virtual destructors, but why does it need to be declared virtual, since they should all be called by default.

Answer 1

Yes, parent destructors will be called automatically.

The destructor should be virtualised so a derived instance can be destroyed properly by code that thinks it has a reference to a base class instance.

In very limited circumstances, it is OK not to virtualise, if you really need to save a few cycles on the vtable lookup.

Answer 2

The need for virtual destructors is because of polymorphism. If you have something like the following:

 class A { ... };

 class B : public A { ... };

 void destroy_class(A* input)
 {
     delete input;
 }

 int main()
 {
     B* class_ptr = new B();
     destroy_class(class_ptr); //you want the right destructor called

     return 0;
 }

While a bit of a contrived example, when you delete the passed-in pointer for the destroy_class() function, you want the correct destructor to get called. If the destructor for class A was not declared virtual , then only the destructor for class A would get called, not the destructor for class B or any other derived type of class A .

Stuff like this is very often a fact-of-life with non-template polymorphic data-structures, etc. where a single deletion function may have to delete pointers of some base-class type that actually points to an object of a derived type.

Answer 3

rubixibuc,

Yeah the subclasses destructor is invoked first, then it's superclass... then it's superclass, and so on until we get to Object's destructor.

More here: http://www.devx.com/tips/Tip/13059 ... it's worth the read... only a screen-full, but it's an INFORMATIVE screen-full.