Suppose I have
class A { public: void print(){cout<<\"A\"; }};
class B: public A { public: void print(){cout<<\"B\"; }};
class C: public A
Compilers are allowed to implement this however they choose. But they generally follow CFront's old implementation.
Consider:
#include
class A {
void foo()
{
std::cout << "foo\n";
}
static int bar()
{
return 42;
}
};
A a;
a.foo();
A::bar();
The compiler changes those last three lines into something similar to:
struct A a = ;
A_foo(a); // the "a" parameter is the "this" pointer, there are not objects as far as
// assembly code is concerned, instead member functions (i.e., methods) are
// simply functions that take a hidden this pointer
A_bar(); // since bar() is static, there is no need to pass the this pointer
Once upon a time I would have guessed that this was handled with pointers-to-functions in each A
object created. However, that approach would mean that every A
object would contain identical information (pointer to the same function) which would waste a lot of space. It's easy enough for the compiler to take care of these details.
Of course, that wasn't really what you asked. But we can extend this to inheritance, and it's what you'd expect:
class B : public A {
void blarg()
{
// who knows, something goes here
}
int bar()
{
return 5;
}
};
B b;
b.blarg();
b.foo();
b.bar();
The compiler turns the last four lines into something like:
struct B b =
B_blarg(b);
A_foo(b.A_portion_of_object);
B_bar(b);
Things get a little trickier when you talk about virtual
methods. In that case, each class gets a class-specific array of pointers-to-functions, one such pointer for each virtual
function. This array is called the vtable ("virtual table"), and each object created has a pointer to the relevant vtable. Calls to virtual
functions are resolved by looking up the correct function to call in the vtable.