为了回答当你运行这段代码时会发生什么/为什么，我通过编译它 g++ -ggdb main。Cc，并逐步使用gdb。

main.cc:

class A { 
  public:
    A() {
      fn();
    }
    virtual void fn() { _n=1; }
    int getn() { return _n; }

  protected:
    int _n;
};


class B: public A {
  public:
    B() {
      // fn();
    }
    void fn() override {
      _n = 2;
    }
};


int main() {
  B b;
}

在main处设置断点，然后进入B()，打印this ptr，进入a()(基构造函数):

(gdb) step
B::B (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:16
16    B() {
(gdb) p this
$27 = (B * const) 0x7fffffffde80
(gdb) p *this
$28 = {<A> = {_vptr.A = 0x7fffffffdf80, _n = 0}, <No data fields>}
(gdb) s
A::A (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:3
3     A() {
(gdb) p this
$29 = (A * const) 0x7fffffffde80

显示它最初指向派生的B对象B，该对象B被构造在0x7fffffffde80的堆栈上。下一步是进入以A()为基数的ctor，这变成了A * const到相同的地址，这是有意义的，因为以A为基数的对象正好在B对象的开头。但它仍然没有被构建:

(gdb) p *this
$30 = {_vptr.A = 0x7fffffffdf80, _n = 0}

还有一步:

(gdb) s
4       fn();
(gdb) p *this
$31 = {_vptr.A = 0x402038 <vtable for A+16>, _n = 0}

_n已经初始化，它的虚函数表指针包含虚void A::fn()的地址:

(gdb) p fn
$32 = {void (A * const)} 0x40114a <A::fn()>
(gdb) x/1a 0x402038
0x402038 <_ZTV1A+16>:   0x40114a <_ZN1A2fnEv>

因此，下一步通过this->fn()执行A::fn()是完全有意义的，前提是活动this和_vptr.A。再一步，我们回到B() ctor:

(gdb) s
B::B (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:18
18    }
(gdb) p this
$34 = (B * const) 0x7fffffffde80
(gdb) p *this
$35 = {<A> = {_vptr.A = 0x402020 <vtable for B+16>, _n = 1}, <No data     fields>}

碱基A已经构造好了。注意，存储在虚函数表指针中的地址已经更改为派生类B的虚表，因此调用fn()将通过this->fn()选择派生类重写B::fn()，给定活动this和_vptr。A(在B()中调用B::fn()来查看这个。)再次检查存储在_vptr中的1个地址。A显示它现在指向派生类重写:

(gdb) p fn
$36 = {void (B * const)} 0x401188 <B::fn()>
(gdb) x/1a 0x402020
0x402020 <_ZTV1B+16>:   0x401188 <_ZN1B2fnEv>

By looking at this example, and by looking at one with a 3 level inheritance, it appears that as the compiler descends to construct the base sub-objects, the type of this* and the corresponding address in _vptr.A change to reflect the current sub-object being constructed, - so it gets left pointing to the most derived type's. So we would expect virtual functions called from within ctors to choose the function for that level, i.e., same result as if they were non-virtual.. Likewise for dtors but in reverse. And this becomes a ptr to member while members are being constructed so they also properly call any virtual functions that are defined for them.

原因是c++对象的构造就像洋葱，由内而外。基类在派生类之前构造。所以，在生成B之前，必须先生成a。当调用A的构造函数时，它还不是B，因此虚函数表中仍然有A的fn()副本的条目。

正如已经指出的那样，对象是在构造时创建的。在构造基对象时，派生对象还不存在，因此虚函数重写不能工作。

然而，如果你的getter返回常量，这可以用多态getter来解决，多态getter使用静态多态性而不是虚函数，或者可以在静态成员函数中表示。本例使用CRTP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiously_recurring_template_pattern)。

template<typename DerivedClass>
class Base
{
public:
    inline Base() :
    foo(DerivedClass::getFoo())
    {}

    inline int fooSq() {
        return foo * foo;
    }

    const int foo;
};

class A : public Base<A>
{
public:
    inline static int getFoo() { return 1; }
};

class B : public Base<B>
{
public:
    inline static int getFoo() { return 2; }
};

class C : public Base<C>
{
public:
    inline static int getFoo() { return 3; }
};

int main()
{
    A a;
    B b;
    C c;

    std::cout << a.fooSq() << ", " << b.fooSq() << ", " << c.fooSq() << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

通过使用静态多态性，基类知道在编译时提供信息时调用哪个类的getter。

为了回答当你运行这段代码时会发生什么/为什么，我通过编译它 g++ -ggdb main。Cc，并逐步使用gdb。

main.cc:

class A { 
  public:
    A() {
      fn();
    }
    virtual void fn() { _n=1; }
    int getn() { return _n; }

  protected:
    int _n;
};


class B: public A {
  public:
    B() {
      // fn();
    }
    void fn() override {
      _n = 2;
    }
};


int main() {
  B b;
}

在main处设置断点，然后进入B()，打印this ptr，进入a()(基构造函数):

(gdb) step
B::B (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:16
16    B() {
(gdb) p this
$27 = (B * const) 0x7fffffffde80
(gdb) p *this
$28 = {<A> = {_vptr.A = 0x7fffffffdf80, _n = 0}, <No data fields>}
(gdb) s
A::A (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:3
3     A() {
(gdb) p this
$29 = (A * const) 0x7fffffffde80

显示它最初指向派生的B对象B，该对象B被构造在0x7fffffffde80的堆栈上。下一步是进入以A()为基数的ctor，这变成了A * const到相同的地址，这是有意义的，因为以A为基数的对象正好在B对象的开头。但它仍然没有被构建:

(gdb) p *this
$30 = {_vptr.A = 0x7fffffffdf80, _n = 0}

还有一步:

(gdb) s
4       fn();
(gdb) p *this
$31 = {_vptr.A = 0x402038 <vtable for A+16>, _n = 0}

_n已经初始化，它的虚函数表指针包含虚void A::fn()的地址:

(gdb) p fn
$32 = {void (A * const)} 0x40114a <A::fn()>
(gdb) x/1a 0x402038
0x402038 <_ZTV1A+16>:   0x40114a <_ZN1A2fnEv>

因此，下一步通过this->fn()执行A::fn()是完全有意义的，前提是活动this和_vptr.A。再一步，我们回到B() ctor:

(gdb) s
B::B (this=0x7fffffffde80) at main2.cc:18
18    }
(gdb) p this
$34 = (B * const) 0x7fffffffde80
(gdb) p *this
$35 = {<A> = {_vptr.A = 0x402020 <vtable for B+16>, _n = 1}, <No data     fields>}

碱基A已经构造好了。注意，存储在虚函数表指针中的地址已经更改为派生类B的虚表，因此调用fn()将通过this->fn()选择派生类重写B::fn()，给定活动this和_vptr。A(在B()中调用B::fn()来查看这个。)再次检查存储在_vptr中的1个地址。A显示它现在指向派生类重写:

(gdb) p fn
$36 = {void (B * const)} 0x401188 <B::fn()>
(gdb) x/1a 0x402020
0x402020 <_ZTV1B+16>:   0x401188 <_ZN1B2fnEv>

By looking at this example, and by looking at one with a 3 level inheritance, it appears that as the compiler descends to construct the base sub-objects, the type of this* and the corresponding address in _vptr.A change to reflect the current sub-object being constructed, - so it gets left pointing to the most derived type's. So we would expect virtual functions called from within ctors to choose the function for that level, i.e., same result as if they were non-virtual.. Likewise for dtors but in reverse. And this becomes a ptr to member while members are being constructed so they also properly call any virtual functions that are defined for them.

你知道Windows资源管理器的崩溃错误吗?“纯虚函数调用…” 同样的问题…

class AbstractClass 
{
public:
    AbstractClass( ){
        //if you call pureVitualFunction I will crash...
    }
    virtual void pureVitualFunction() = 0;
};

由于pureVitualFunction()函数没有实现，并且在构造函数中调用该函数，因此程序将崩溃。

c++ FAQ Lite很好地涵盖了这一点:

本质上，在调用基类构造函数期间，对象还不是派生类型，因此调用的是基类型的虚函数实现，而不是派生类型的实现。