c++: why can't 'this' be a nullptr?

Question

In my early days with C++, I seem to recall you could call a member function with a NULL pointer, and check for that in the member function:

class Thing {public: void x();}

void Thing::x()
{ if (this == NULL) return; //nothing to do
   ...do stuff...
}

Thing* p = NULL; //nullptr these days, of course
p->x(); //no crash

Doing this may seem silly, but it was absolutely wonderful when writing recursive functions to traverse data structures, where navigating could easily run into the blind alley of a NULL; navigation functions could do a single check for NULL at the top and then blithely call themselves to try to navigate deeper without littering the code with additional checks.

According to g++ at least, the freedom (if it ever existed) has been revoked. The compiler warns about it, and if compiling optimized, it causes crashes.

Question 1: does the C++ standard (any flavor) disallow a NULL this? Or is g++ just getting in my face?

Question 2. More philosophically, why? 'this' is just another pointer. The glory of pointers is that they can be nullptr, and that's a useful condition.

I know I can get around this by making static functions, passing as first parameter a pointer to the data structure (hellllo Days of C) and then check the pointer. I'm just surprised I'd need to.

Edit: To upvote an answer I'd like to see chapter and verse from the standard on why this is disallowed. Note that my example at NO POINT dereferences NULL. Nothing is virtual here, and p is copied to "argument this" but then checked before use. No defererence occurs! so dereference of NULL can't be used as a claim of UB.

People are making a knee-jerk reaction to *p and assuming it isn't valid if p is NULL. But it is, and the evidence is here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#232 In fact it calls out two cases when a pointer, p, is surprisingly valid as *p: when p is null or when p points one element past the end of an array. What you must never do is USE the value of *p... other than to take the address of it. &*p where p == nullptr for any pointer type p IS valid. It's fine to point out that p->x() is really (*p).x(), but at the end of the day that translates to x(&*p) and that is perfectly well formed and valid. For p=nullptr... it simply becomes x(nullptr).

I think my debate should be with the standards community; in their haste to undercut the concept of a null reference, they left wording unclear. Since no one here has demanded p->x() is UB without trying to demand that it's UB because *p is UB; and because *p is definitely not UB because no aspect of x() uses the referenced value, I'm going to put this down to g++ overreaching on a standard ambiguity. The absolutely identical mechanism using a static function and extra parameter is well defined, so it's not like it stops my refactor effort. Consider the question withdrawn; portable code can't assume this==nullptr will work but there's a portable solution available, so in the end it doesn't matter.

Answer 1

To be in a situation where this is nullptr implies you called a non-static member function without using a valid instance such as with a pointer set to nullptr . Since this is forbidden, to obtain a null this you must already be in undefined behavior. In other words, this is never nullptr unless you have undefined behavior. Due to the nature of undefined behavior, you can simplify the statement to simply be " this is never nullptr " since no rule needs to be upheld in the presence of undefined behavior.

Answer 2

Question 1: does the C++ standard (any flavor) disallow a NULL this? Or is g++ just getting in my face?

The C++ standard disallows it -- calling a method on a NULL pointer is officially 'undefined behavior' and you must avoid doing it or you will get bit. In particular, optimizers will assume that the this-pointer is non-NULL when making optimizations, leading to strange/unexpected behaviors at runtime (I know this from experience :))

Question 2. More philosophically, why? 'this' is just another pointer. The glory of pointers is that they can be nullptr, and that's a useful condition.

I'm not sure it matters, really; it's what is specified in the C++ standard, and they probably had their reasons (philosophical or otherwise), but since the standard specifies it, the compilers expect it, therefore as programmers we have to abide by it, or face undefined behavior. (One can imagine an alternate universe where NULL this-pointers are allowed, but we don't live there)

Answer 3

C++ does not allow calling member functions of null object. Objects need identity and that can not be stored to null pointer. What would happen if member function would read or write a field of a object referenced by null pointer?

It sounds like you could use null object pattern in your code to create wanted result.

Null pointer is recognised a problematic entity in object oriented languages because in most languages it is not a object. This creates a need for code that specifically handles the case something being null. While checking for special null pointer is the norm. There are other approaches. Smalltalk actually has a NullObject which has methods its own methods. As all objects it can also be extended. Go programming language does allow calling struct member functions for something that is nil (which sounds like something required in the question).

Answer 4

The question has already been answered - it is undefined behavior to dereference a null pointer, and using *obj or obj-> are both dereferencing.

Now (since I assume you have a question on how to work around this) the solution is to use static function:

class Foo {
    static auto bar_st(Foo* foo) { if (foo) return foo->bar(); }
}

Having said that, I do think that gcc's decision of eliminating all branches for nullptr this was not a wise one. Nobody gained by that, and a lot of people suffered. What's the benefit?

Answer 5

this太多，如果你可能为空delete this （这是可能的，但不推荐）