std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while...
Why doesn't the standard consider a template constructor as a copy constructor?
Unable to completely uninstall Zoom meeting app
Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?
How do I prove this combinatorial identity
finding a tangent line to a parabola
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
How to translate "red flag" into Spanish?
Multiple fireplaces in an apartment building?
What *exactly* is electrical current, voltage, and resistance?
Why does Arg'[1. + I] return -0.5?
Was Dennis Ritchie being too modest in this quote about C and Pascal?
What is this word supposed to be?
Suing a Police Officer Instead of the Police Department
A faster way to compute the largest prime factor
How to have a sharp product image?
My admission is revoked after accepting the admission offer
Double-nominative constructions and “von”
Older movie/show about humans on derelict alien warship which refuels by passing through a star
Raising a bilingual kid. When should we introduce the majority language?
What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management
Crossed out red box fitting tightly around image
Protagonist's race is hidden - should I reveal it?
Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?
Why must Chinese maps be obfuscated?
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
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
|
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
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
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,clangdoes complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
51 mins 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
40 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
37 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
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
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
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
edited 1 hour ago
ypnos
37.2k1377113
37.2k1377113
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
asked 1 hour ago
gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj
507617
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,clangdoes complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
51 mins 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
40 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
37 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,clangdoes complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts
– Max Langhof
51 mins 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
40 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
37 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
51 mins ago
For the record,
clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts– Max Langhof
51 mins 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
40 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
40 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
37 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
37 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.
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 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.
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
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.
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 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.
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 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.
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
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 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
answered 50 mins ago
Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel
8,63811425
8,63811425
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 mins ago
add a comment |
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 mins ago
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 mins ago
That's a good find from GCC manual.
– P.W
27 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.
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
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.
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
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.
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
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 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
answered 46 mins ago
ArkadiyArkadiy
18.2k559102
answered 46 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,
clangdoes complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts– Max Langhof
51 mins 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
40 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
37 mins ago