By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,473 Members | 3,504 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,473 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Member function pointer cast question

P: n/a
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}
};
typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();

int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;
}

To my surprise, this code works! However, if the Base class doesn't
have any virtual functions, the above code won't compile, or cause
runtime error. At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class member
can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member, but now vice
versa.

I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works. And show me where in
the c++ standard allows this kind of usage, if you like. Thanks in
advance.

Sep 25 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a
WaterWalk wrote:
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}
};
typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();

int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Don't have my copy of the Standard handy, but I believe this cast leads
to UB.
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;
}

To my surprise, this code works!
UB can do anything, including working "as expected".

Sep 25 '07 #2

P: n/a
"WaterWalk" <to********@163.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com...
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}
};
typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();

int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;
}

To my surprise, this code works! However, if the Base class doesn't
have any virtual functions, the above code won't compile, or cause
runtime error. At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class member
can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member, but now vice
versa.

I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works. And show me where in
the c++ standard allows this kind of usage, if you like. Thanks in
advance.
It's undefined behavior. I understand why it works, but it's not guaranteed
to work in all implementations. And next version of the compiler, it may
not work anymore.
Sep 25 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Sep 25, 1:13 pm, WaterWalk <toolmas...@163.comwrote:
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}

};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}

};

typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();

int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;

}

To my surprise, this code works! However, if the Base class doesn't
have any virtual functions, the above code won't compile, or cause
runtime error. At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class member
can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member, but now vice
versa.

I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works. And show me where in
the c++ standard allows this kind of usage, if you like. Thanks in
advance.
I made a mistake. Base needn't to have virtual functions to make the
code "work".

Sep 25 '07 #4

P: n/a
On Sep 25, 1:13 pm, WaterWalk <toolmas...@163.comwrote:
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}

};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}

};

typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();

int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;

}

To my surprise, this code works! However, if the Base class doesn't
have any virtual functions, the above code won't compile, or cause
runtime error. At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class member
can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member, but now vice
versa.

I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works. And show me where in
the c++ standard allows this kind of usage, if you like. Thanks in
advance.
It seems that this "technology" is useful. When I browse the wxWidgets
source code, I find it's event mechanism may use pointer-to-member-
function this way. When it needs to register an event handler, it'll
cast the member function pointer to base member function pointer,
store it somewhere, and later call it.

So I wonder whether this is undefined behavior. If it is, then
wxWidgets may be built on a weak base.(Maybe I am wrong here.)

Sep 25 '07 #5

P: n/a
On Sep 25, 7:13 am, WaterWalk <toolmas...@163.comwrote:
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}
};
typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();
int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;
}
To my surprise, this code works!
It's guaranteed by the standard. At least one major GUI
framework used something like this for its callbacks. (But it
surprised me as well when I first encountered it, and I had to
verify in the standard that it was well defined.)
However, if the Base class doesn't have any virtual functions,
the above code won't compile, or cause runtime error.
It should work, regardless. At least one major compiler (VC++),
however, uses a broken implementation of pointers to member functions
by
default; if you're using VC++, you probably need the /vmg option.
At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class
member can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member,
but not vice versa.
There's an implicit conversion of Derived::* to Base::*. You
need a static_cast to go the other direction, and when using the
resulting Base::*, it's undefined behavior unless the Base
object is actually a Derived.
I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works.
How it works is the implementors problem. Normally, a pointer
to member function will be a struct with quite a bit of
information: whether the function is virtual or not, the actual
address of the function, if it's not, or its index in the
vtable, if it is, any offset or correction needed for the this
pointer, etc. And calling through a pointer to member involves
evaluating all this information. Alterantively, an
implementation may use a "trampoline"; when you take the address
of a pointer to member, it creates a small function which does
whatever is necessary to call the function, given the address of
the object. And conversions like the above involve modifying
the information or generating a new trampoline.
And show me where in the c++ standard allows this kind of
usage.
§5.2.9/10:

An rvalue of type "pointer to member of D of type cv1 T"
can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to member
of B" of type cv2 T, where B is a base class (clause 10)
of D, if a valid standard conversion from "pointer to
member of B of type T" to "pointer to member of D of
type T" exists (4.11), and cv2 is the same
cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than,
cv1.69) The null member pointer value (4.11) is
converted to the null member pointer value of the
destination type. If class B contains the original
member, or is a base or derived class of the class
containing the original member, the resulting pointer to
member points to the original member. Otherwise, the
result of the cast is undefined. [ Note: although class
B need not contain the original member, the dynamic type
of the object on which the pointer to member is
dereferenced must contain the original member; see 5.5.
--end note ]

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja*********@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Sep 25 '07 #6

P: n/a
On 2007-09-25 06:11:35 -0400, James Kanze <ja*********@gmail.comsaid:
>
There's an implicit conversion of Derived::* to Base::*.
Typo. That should be: There's an implicit conversion of Base::* to
Derived::*. It goes the opposite way from ordinary pointer conversions.
You
need a static_cast to go the other direction, and when using the
resulting Base::*, it's undefined behavior unless the Base
object is actually a Derived.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

Sep 25 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Sep 25, 6:11 pm, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 25, 7:13 am, WaterWalk <toolmas...@163.comwrote:
Hello. I thought I understood member function pointers, but in fact I
don't. Consider the following example:
class Base
{
public:
virtual ~Base() {}
};
class Derived : public Base
{
public:
void test()
{
printf("Derived::test()\n");
}
};
typedef void (Derived::*funcD) ();
typedef void (Base::*funcB) ();
int main()
{
funcD fd = &Derived::test;
funcB fb = static_cast<funcB>(fd);
Derived d;
Base *pb = &d;
(pb->*fb)(); // will print "Derived::test()" !
return 0;
}
To my surprise, this code works!

It's guaranteed by the standard. At least one major GUI
framework used something like this for its callbacks. (But it
surprised me as well when I first encountered it, and I had to
verify in the standard that it was well defined.)
However, if the Base class doesn't have any virtual functions,
the above code won't compile, or cause runtime error.

It should work, regardless. At least one major compiler (VC++),
however, uses a broken implementation of pointers to member functions
by
default; if you're using VC++, you probably need the /vmg option.
At the same time, in section 15.5.1 of BS's "The C++
Programming Language", it states that a pointer to base class
member can be assigned to a pointer to derived class member,
but not vice versa.

There's an implicit conversion of Derived::* to Base::*. You
need a static_cast to go the other direction, and when using the
resulting Base::*, it's undefined behavior unless the Base
object is actually a Derived.
I'm lost. Please help me figure out how it works.

How it works is the implementors problem. Normally, a pointer
to member function will be a struct with quite a bit of
information: whether the function is virtual or not, the actual
address of the function, if it's not, or its index in the
vtable, if it is, any offset or correction needed for the this
pointer, etc. And calling through a pointer to member involves
evaluating all this information. Alterantively, an
implementation may use a "trampoline"; when you take the address
of a pointer to member, it creates a small function which does
whatever is necessary to call the function, given the address of
the object. And conversions like the above involve modifying
the information or generating a new trampoline.
And show me where in the c++ standard allows this kind of
usage.

§5.2.9/10:

An rvalue of type "pointer to member of D of type cv1 T"
can be converted to an rvalue of type "pointer to member
of B" of type cv2 T, where B is a base class (clause 10)
of D, if a valid standard conversion from "pointer to
member of B of type T" to "pointer to member of D of
type T" exists (4.11), and cv2 is the same
cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than,
cv1.69) The null member pointer value (4.11) is
converted to the null member pointer value of the
destination type. If class B contains the original
member, or is a base or derived class of the class
containing the original member, the resulting pointer to
member points to the original member. Otherwise, the
result of the cast is undefined. [ Note: although class
B need not contain the original member, the dynamic type
of the object on which the pointer to member is
dereferenced must contain the original member; see 5.5.
--end note ]

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
Thanks. That makes all clear.

Sep 26 '07 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.