std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while naked pointer shows it. Why? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why unique-ptr doesn't check base class to virtual destructible?Does delete work with pointers to base class?Why does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?Why simple destructor does not delete the derived object if declared using base pointerCalling a Derived Class method from a Void Pointer cast to a Base Objectclang & gcc don't warn about non-virtual base destructors for polymorphism when using smart pointers?Why is initialization of derived class through a base class pointer different from that through a derived class pointer?Destructor when derived class contains a pointer to base class objectUsing base class rather than base pointer to work on derived classHow to prevent a derived class object under base class pointer calling a public nonvirtual function defined in base class but overridden in derived?How can I convert std::make_unique<derived>() to std::unique_ptr<base>
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
Is there really no use for MD5 anymore?
Arriving in Atlanta after US Preclearance in Dublin. Will I go through TSA security in Atlanta to transfer to a connecting flight?
Why doesn't the standard consider a template constructor as a copy constructor?
Jaya, Venerated Firemage + Chandra's Pyrohelix = 4 damage among two targets?
Reattaching fallen shelf to wall?
What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?
Is it acceptable to use working hours to read general interest books?
What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?
What is /etc/mtab in Linux?
Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?
A Paper Record is What I Hamper
What is it called when you ride around on your front wheel?
How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?
Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department
Does Feeblemind produce an ongoing magical effect that can be dispelled?
Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?
Why do games have consumables?
Why does Arg'[1. + I] return -0.5?
How to avoid introduction cliches
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
All ASCII characters with a given bit count
Why must Chinese maps be obfuscated?
When do you need buffers/drivers on buses in a microprocessor design?
std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while naked pointer shows it. Why?
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why unique-ptr doesn't check base class to virtual destructible?Does delete work with pointers to base class?Why does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?Why simple destructor does not delete the derived object if declared using base pointerCalling a Derived Class method from a Void Pointer cast to a Base Objectclang & gcc don't warn about non-virtual base destructors for polymorphism when using smart pointers?Why is initialization of derived class through a base class pointer different from that through a derived class pointer?Destructor when derived class contains a pointer to base class objectUsing base class rather than base pointer to work on derived classHow to prevent a derived class object under base class pointer calling a public nonvirtual function defined in base class but overridden in derived?How can I convert std::make_unique<derived>() to std::unique_ptr<base>
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.
class Base
public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;
class Derived : public Base
public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;
Now if i do like this:
int main()
Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;
It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.
But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.
int main()
std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());
return 0;
I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.
c++ c++14 gcc-warning
|
show 5 more comments
I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.
class Base
public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;
class Derived : public Base
public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;
Now if i do like this:
int main()
Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;
It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.
But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.
int main()
std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());
return 0;
I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.
c++ c++14 gcc-warning
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
1
For the record,clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
1
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
1
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago
|
show 5 more comments
I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.
class Base
public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;
class Derived : public Base
public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;
Now if i do like this:
int main()
Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;
It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.
But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.
int main()
std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());
return 0;
I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.
c++ c++14 gcc-warning
I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.
class Base
public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;
class Derived : public Base
public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;
Now if i do like this:
int main()
Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;
It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.
But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.
int main()
std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());
return 0;
I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.
c++ c++14 gcc-warning
c++ c++14 gcc-warning
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
507617
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
1
For the record,clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
1
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
1
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago
|
show 5 more comments
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
1
For the record,clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
1
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
1
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
1
1
For the record,
clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
For the record,
clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
1
1
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
1
1
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago
|
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…
That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr
is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
add a comment |
I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.
The warning is issued on the actual delete
expression. In the case of unique_ptr
, the delete
is called inside a system header file.
According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.
Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55848866%2fstdunique-ptr-of-base-class-holding-reference-of-derived-class-does-not-show-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…
That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr
is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…
That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr
is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
add a comment |
Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…
That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr
is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.
Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…
That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr
is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.
answered 59 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,64811525
8,64811525
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
add a comment |
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
35 mins ago
add a comment |
I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.
The warning is issued on the actual delete
expression. In the case of unique_ptr
, the delete
is called inside a system header file.
According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.
Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.
add a comment |
I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.
The warning is issued on the actual delete
expression. In the case of unique_ptr
, the delete
is called inside a system header file.
According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.
Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.
add a comment |
I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.
The warning is issued on the actual delete
expression. In the case of unique_ptr
, the delete
is called inside a system header file.
According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.
Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.
I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.
The warning is issued on the actual delete
expression. In the case of unique_ptr
, the delete
is called inside a system header file.
According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.
Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html
The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.
answered 55 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
18.2k559102
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55848866%2fstdunique-ptr-of-base-class-holding-reference-of-derived-class-does-not-show-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?
– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago
1
For the record,
clang
does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts– Max Langhof
1 hour ago
1
@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)
– Daniel Langr
49 mins ago
1
@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.
– P.W
46 mins ago