If we dont have virtual constructors then why we have virtual destructors? Can constructors also be virtual?
A* a = new B;
[B
inherits
from A
], and you later delete a;
- the compiler has no way of
knowing a
is a B
[in the general case], and will invoke A
's
destructor - if it wasn't virtual, and you might get a memory leak,
or other faults.B
's destructor is
invoked, since a B
object is being destroyed.#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class base {
protected:
int a;
};
class derived : public base {
};
int main() {
base * pointer_of_base = new derived;
delete pointer_of_base; // this will delete the base calss not the derived
}
The constructors are called on one time when we create the object of the class so when we inherit the base class constructors calls only one time so no need to be virtual.
But when we accessing the derived class from the pointer of the base class, if we want to delete the object of derived class we delete it by the pointer of base class but delete(pointer_of_base) will call the destructor of the base class but the actual motto is to delete the derived class . thus we need the destructor be virtual in nature.
Virtual destructors are needed because at destruction time, you don't always know what type you're dealing with:
Base *make_me_an_object()
{
if (the_moon_is_full())
return new Derived();
else
return new Base();
}
int main()
{
Base *p = make_me_an_object();
delete p;
}
The delete
in the above program's main
doesn't know whether its p
points to a Base
or a Derived
object, but if the Base
destructor is virtual
(as it should be), then delete
can use *p
's vtable to find the right destructor.
By contrast, at construction time, you always know what kind of object you're creating. (And in case you don't, then you can create a factory or "virtual constructor" that does know.)