C++ – Are abstract methods and pure virtual functions the same thing

cfunctionvirtual

As far as I know, both abstract methods and pure virtual functions do NOT provide any functionality … So can we say they're both the same thing ?

Also, suppose a class (not necessarily declared as abstract) contains a number of implemented methods (not abstract or virtual), but contains a pure virtual function. Is this class then abstract ?

Best Answer

Yes, they are the same thing. In C++, an abstract method is just another way of describing the characteristics of a pure virtual function. Both just mean a method with no implementation provided that needs to be implemented in a sub-class before the class can actually be instantiated.

The situation with pure virtual functions and abstract classes in C++ is similar as they essentially mean exactly the same thing. Any abstract class must have at least 1 pure virtual function or else it could be instantiated and wouldn't be abstract. Likewise, any class with at least 1 pure virtual function must be abstract because it needs to be extended so that method can actually be implemented.

Therefore, a class is abstract if and only if it contains at least 1 pure virtual function/abstract method.

Later on, languages like Java and C# made things like this more explicit, allowing a special keyword to define a class abstract rather than the presence of a pure-virtual function. C++ lets you do the same things as these languages, but they're just a little more explicit about it. :D

Related Solutions

C++ – What are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++

A pointer can be re-assigned:

int x = 5;
int y = 6;
int *p;
p = &x;
p = &y;
*p = 10;
assert(x == 5);
assert(y == 10);

A reference cannot be re-bound, and must be bound at initialization:

int x = 5;
int y = 6;
int &q; // error
int &r = x;

A pointer variable has its own identity: a distinct, visible memory address that can be taken with the unary & operator and a certain amount of space that can be measured with the sizeof operator. Using those operators on a reference returns a value corresponding to whatever the reference is bound to; the reference’s own address and size are invisible. Since the reference assumes the identity of the original variable in this way, it is convenient to think of a reference as another name for the same variable.
```
int x = 0;
int &r = x;
int *p = &x;
int *p2 = &r;

assert(p == p2); // &x == &r
assert(&p != &p2);
```

You can have arbitrarily nested pointers to pointers offering extra levels of indirection. References only offer one level of indirection.

int x = 0;
int y = 0;
int *p = &x;
int *q = &y;
int **pp = &p;

**pp = 2;
pp = &q; // *pp is now q
**pp = 4;

assert(y == 4);
assert(x == 2);

A pointer can be assigned nullptr, whereas a reference must be bound to an existing object. If you try hard enough, you can bind a reference to nullptr, but this is undefined and will not behave consistently.

/* the code below is undefined; your compiler may optimise it
 * differently, emit warnings, or outright refuse to compile it */

int &r = *static_cast<int *>(nullptr);

// prints "null" under GCC 10
std::cout
    << (&r != nullptr
        ? "not null" : "null")
    << std::endl;

bool f(int &r) { return &r != nullptr; }

// prints "not null" under GCC 10
std::cout
    << (f(*static_cast<int *>(nullptr))
        ? "not null" : "null")
    << std::endl;

You can, however, have a reference to a pointer whose value is nullptr.

Pointers can iterate over an array; you can use ++ to go to the next item that a pointer is pointing to, and + 4 to go to the 5th element. This is no matter what size the object is that the pointer points to.
A pointer needs to be dereferenced with * to access the memory location it points to, whereas a reference can be used directly. A pointer to a class/struct uses -> to access its members whereas a reference uses a ..
References cannot be put into an array, whereas pointers can be (Mentioned by user @litb)
Const references can be bound to temporaries. Pointers cannot (not without some indirection):
```
const int &x = int(12); // legal C++
int *y = &int(12); // illegal to take the address of a temporary.
```
This makes const & more convenient to use in argument lists and so forth.

C++ – How are virtual functions and vtable implemented

How are virtual functions implemented at a deep level?

From "Virtual Functions in C++":

Whenever a program has a virtual function declared, a v - table is constructed for the class. The v-table consists of addresses to the virtual functions for classes that contain one or more virtual functions. The object of the class containing the virtual function contains a virtual pointer that points to the base address of the virtual table in memory. Whenever there is a virtual function call, the v-table is used to resolve to the function address. An object of the class that contains one or more virtual functions contains a virtual pointer called the vptr at the very beginning of the object in the memory. Hence the size of the object in this case increases by the size of the pointer. This vptr contains the base address of the virtual table in memory. Note that virtual tables are class specific, i.e., there is only one virtual table for a class irrespective of the number of virtual functions it contains. This virtual table in turn contains the base addresses of one or more virtual functions of the class. At the time when a virtual function is called on an object, the vptr of that object provides the base address of the virtual table for that class in memory. This table is used to resolve the function call as it contains the addresses of all the virtual functions of that class. This is how dynamic binding is resolved during a virtual function call.

Can the vtable be modified or even directly accessed at runtime?

Universally, I believe the answer is "no". You could do some memory mangling to find the vtable but you still wouldn't know what the function signature looks like to call it. Anything that you would want to achieve with this ability (that the language supports) should be possible without access to the vtable directly or modifying it at runtime. Also note, the C++ language spec does not specify that vtables are required - however that is how most compilers implement virtual functions.

Does the vtable exist for all objects, or only those that have at least one virtual function?

I believe the answer here is "it depends on the implementation" since the spec doesn't require vtables in the first place. However, in practice, I believe all modern compilers only create a vtable if a class has at least 1 virtual function. There is a space overhead associated with the vtable and a time overhead associated with calling a virtual function vs a non-virtual function.

Do abstract classes simply have a NULL for the function pointer of at least one entry?

The answer is it is unspecified by the language spec so it depends on the implementation. Calling the pure virtual function results in undefined behavior if it is not defined (which it usually isn't) (ISO/IEC 14882:2003 10.4-2). In practice it does allocate a slot in the vtable for the function but does not assign an address to it. This leaves the vtable incomplete which requires the derived classes to implement the function and complete the vtable. Some implementations do simply place a NULL pointer in the vtable entry; other implementations place a pointer to a dummy method that does something similar to an assertion.

Note that an abstract class can define an implementation for a pure virtual function, but that function can only be called with a qualified-id syntax (ie., fully specifying the class in the method name, similar to calling a base class method from a derived class). This is done to provide an easy to use default implementation, while still requiring that a derived class provide an override.

Does having a single virtual function slow down the whole class or only the call to the function that is virtual?

This is getting to the edge of my knowledge, so someone please help me out here if I'm wrong!

I believe that only the functions that are virtual in the class experience the time performance hit related to calling a virtual function vs. a non-virtual function. The space overhead for the class is there either way. Note that if there is a vtable, there is only 1 per class, not one per object.

Does the speed get affected if the virtual function is actually overridden or not, or does this have no effect so long as it is virtual?

I don't believe the execution time of a virtual function that is overridden decreases compared to calling the base virtual function. However, there is an additional space overhead for the class associated with defining another vtable for the derived class vs the base class.

Additional Resources:

http://www.codersource.net/published/view/325/virtual_functions_in.aspx (via way back machine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_table
http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html#vtable