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。

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。

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.

虚表是由编译器创建的。 类对象有一个指向虚表的指针。当它开始生命时，虚表指针指向虚表 基类的。在构造函数代码的末尾，编译器生成重新指向虚表指针的代码 到类的实际虚函数表。这样可以确保调用虚函数的构造函数代码调用 这些函数的基类实现，而不是类中的重写。

解决这个问题的一个方法是使用工厂方法来创建对象。

为你的类层次结构定义一个公共基类，其中包含一个虚拟方法afterConstruction():

class Object
{
public:
  virtual void afterConstruction() {}
  // ...
};

定义一个工厂方法:

template< class C >
C* factoryNew()
{
  C* pObject = new C();
  pObject->afterConstruction();

  return pObject;
}

像这样使用它:

class MyClass : public Object 
{
public:
  virtual void afterConstruction()
  {
    // do something.
  }
  // ...
};

MyClass* pMyObject = factoryNew();

c++标准(ISO/IEC 14882-2014)说:

Member functions, including virtual functions (10.3), can be called during construction or destruction (12.6.2). When a virtual function is called directly or indirectly from a constructor or from a destructor, including during the construction or destruction of the class’s non-static data members, and the object to which the call applies is the object (call it x) under construction or destruction, the function called is the final overrider in the constructor’s or destructor’s class and not one overriding it in a more-derived class. If the virtual function call uses an explicit class member access (5.2.5) and the object expression refers to the complete object of x or one of that object’s base class subobjects but not x or one of its base class subobjects, the behavior is undefined.

因此，不要从构造函数或析构函数中调用试图调用正在构造或销毁的对象的虚函数，因为构造函数的顺序从基类开始到派生类，而析构函数的顺序从派生类开始到基类。

因此，试图从正在构建的基类调用派生类函数是危险的。类似地，对象以与构造相反的顺序被销毁，因此试图从析构函数调用派生类中的函数可能会访问已经释放的资源。