I know the memory layout of multiple inheritance is not defined, so I should not rely on it. However, can I rely on it in a special case. That is, a class has only one "
In C++11 the compiler is required to use the Empty Base-class Optimization for standard layout types. see https://stackoverflow.com/a/10789707/981959
For your specific example all the types are standard layout classes and don't have common base classes or members (see below) so you can rely on that behaviour in C++11 (and in practice, I think many compilers already followed that rule, certainly G++ did, and others following the Itanium C++ ABI.)
A caveat: make sure you don't have any base classes of the same type, because they must be at distinct addresses, e.g.
struct I {};
struct J : I {};
struct K : I { };
struct X { int i; };
struct Y : J, K, X { };
#include <iostream>
Y y;
int main()
{
std::cout << &y << ' ' << &y.i << ' ' << (X*)&y << ' ' << (I*)(J*)&y << ' ' << (I*)(K*)&y << '\n';
}
prints:
0x600d60 0x600d60 0x600d60 0x600d60 0x600d61
For the type Y
only one of the I
bases can be at offset zero, so although the X
sub-object is at offset zero (i.e. offsetof(Y, i)
is zero) and one of the I
bases is at the same address, but the other I
base is (at least with G++ and Clang++) one byte into the object, so if you got an I*
you couldn't reinterpret_cast
to X*
because you wouldn't know which I
sub-object it pointed to, the I
at offset 0 or the I
at offset 1.
It's OK for the compiler to put the second I
sub-object at offset 1 (i.e. inside the int
) because I
has no non-static data members, so you can't actually dereference or access anything at that address, only get a pointer to the object at that address. If you added non-static data members to I
then Y
would no longer be standard layout and would not have to use the EBO, and offsetof(Y, i)
would no longer be zero.