On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Jeremy Orlow <jor...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Scott Hess <sh...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Just to be clear for those of us who are wobbly on C++, this is
>> because during the constructor or destructor, your object is of the
>> class in question, NOT of the class it will finally be, because in the
>> constructor the subclass has not been constructed, yet, and in the
>> destructor the subclass was already destructed. So calling to the
>> subclass virtual implementation would be bad.
>>
>> Scott Meyers says: http://www.artima.com/cppsource/nevercall.html
>>
>> Is there any way we could modify an object to assert that it can't
>> happen in development? Like scoped_vtable_killer declared in the
>> constructor and destructor which makes calling a virtual method on
>> that object fatal?
>
> Or is there any sort of built in compiler warning that we could turn on? I
> did a bit of searching and was really surprised that I couldn't find any
> mention of such a thing.
It would have to be a really smart compiler, because you could call a
function which calls another object's function which calls back to a
virtual in your object. That's why I suggested a way to make vtable
references fatal, so at least when doing development you could get a
notification (and not check it in).
-scott
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
