CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++virtual-destructor
dimba
dimba

Reputation: 27581

Destructor of a concrete class

Guideline #4 link text, states:

A base class destructor should be either public and virtual, or protected and nonvirtual.

Probably I'm missing something, but what if I just create a concrete class, that is not designed to be used as base class.

Should I declare it's destructor public and virtual? By this I'm implicitly declate that my class is "ready to be used as base class", while this is not necessary true.

Upvotes: 0

Views: 575

Answers (6)

Mike Seymour
Mike Seymour

Reputation: 254431

The advice refers to classes with virtual functions, intended to be polymorphic base classes. You have to make sure that if someone calls delete on a base class pointer, then the destructor of the actual class is called; otherwise, resources allocated by the derived classes won't be freed.

There are two ways to achieve this:

  • a public virtual destructor, so the correct destructor is found at runtime; or
  • a protected non-virtual destructor, which prevents calling delete on a base class pointer.

For a concrete class that won't be used as a base class, you will only ever call delete on a pointer to the actual type, so the advice doesn't apply. It should have a public non-virtual destructor if it needs one.

Upvotes: 0

Stephen Newell
Stephen Newell

Reputation: 7828

Your destructor only needs to be virtual if your class will be extended later. I'm not aware of a case where you'd want a protected/private destructor.

It's worth noting that if you have even one virtual method, you lose nothing (with most compilers) making the destructor virtual as well (but it will protect you in case somebody extends later).

Upvotes: 0

Roman Nikitchenko
Roman Nikitchenko

Reputation: 13036

Destructor SHALL BE virtual in any of the following cases:

  • Your class contains ANY virtual method.
  • Even if nothing is virtual you plan to use class as base.

Rare exception:

  • You are trying to save 4 bytes and virtual table pointer is NOT ACCEPTABLE solution because of this (example - your class HAS to fit in 32 bits because of some reason). But be prepared for hell.

Regarding public or protected - in general it is more question of how you intend to control access to destructor.

Upvotes: 0

pmr
pmr

Reputation: 59811

Consider it another way around: Do you know that no one will absolutely ever try to derive from your class and when somebody does do you think he will remember to take a closer look at your dtor? Sometimes people use inheritance over composition for a good reason (provide the full interface of your class without having ugly getter syntax).
Another point for the virtual dtor is the Open/Closed Principle.
I'd go with the virtual dtor if you are not concerned with hard real-time performance or something alike.

Upvotes: 0

Reed Copsey
Reed Copsey

Reputation: 564363

The link text specifically says"A base class destructor should be"...

The guidelines are only meant for a class which is designed to be used as a base class. If you are making a single, concrete class that will not be used as a base class, you should leave the public constructor non-virtual.

Upvotes: 5

Rasmus Kaj
Rasmus Kaj

Reputation: 4360

If nothing else in your class is virtual, I don't think the destructor should be virtual either.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions