The virtual mechanism only works when you have a based class pointer to a derived class object. Construction has it's own rules for the calling of base class constructors, basically base class to derived. How could a virtual constructor be useful or called? I don't know what other languages do, but I can't see how a virtual constructor could be useful or even implemented. Construction needs to have taken place for the virtual mechanism to make any sense and construction also needs to have taken place for the vtable structures to have been created which provides the mechanics of the polymorphic behaviour.

抛开语义上的原因不谈，在对象被构造之后才有虚表，因此虚表的指定是无用的。

When a constructor is invoked, although there is no object created till that point, we still know the kind of object that is gonna be created because the specific constructor of the class to which the object belongs to has already been called. Virtual keyword associated with a function means the function of a particular object type is gonna be called. So, my thinking says that there is no need to make the virtual constructor because already the desired constructor whose object is gonna be created has been invoked and making constructor virtual is just a redundant thing to do because the object-specific constructor has already been invoked and this is same as calling class-specific function which is achieved through the virtual keyword. Although the inner implementation won’t allow virtual constructor for vptr and vtable related reasons.

Another reason is that C++ is a statically typed language and we need to know the type of a variable at compile-time. The compiler must be aware of the class type to create the object. The type of object to be created is a compile-time decision. If we make the constructor virtual then it means that we don’t need to know the type of the object at compile-time(that’s what virtual function provide. We don’t need to know the actual object and just need the base pointer to point an actual object call the pointed object’s virtual functions without knowing the type of the object) and if we don’t know the type of the object at compile time then it is against the statically typed languages. And hence, run-time polymorphism cannot be achieved. Hence, Constructor won’t be called without knowing the type of the object at compile-time. And so the idea of making a virtual constructor fails.

有一个非常基本的原因:构造函数实际上是静态函数，而在c++中没有静态函数可以是虚函数。

如果你有丰富的c++经验，你就会知道静态函数和成员函数之间的区别。静态函数与CLASS相关联，而不是与对象(实例)相关联，因此它们看不到“this”指针。只有成员函数可以是虚函数，因为虚表——使“虚”工作的函数指针的隐藏表——实际上是每个对象的数据成员。

构造函数的任务是什么?它在名称中——“T”构造函数在分配T对象时初始化它们。这将自动排除它成为成员函数!对象必须先存在，然后才有this指针，从而有虚表。这意味着即使语言将构造函数视为普通函数(它并没有，由于相关原因，我不会深入讨论)，它们也必须是静态成员函数。

了解这一点的一个好方法是查看“Factory”模式，特别是工厂函数。它们做你想做的事情，你会注意到，如果类T有一个工厂方法，它是ALWAYS STATIC。这是必须的。

你也不应该在构造函数中调用虚函数。参见:http://www.artima.com/cppsource/nevercall.html

另外，我不确定是否真的需要虚拟构造函数。你可以在没有它的情况下实现多态构造:你可以编写一个函数，根据所需的参数构造你的对象。

c++的虚拟构造函数是不可能的。例如，不能将构造函数标记为虚函数。试试这段代码

#include<iostream.h>
using namespace std;
class aClass
{
    public:
        virtual aClass()
        {   
        }  
};
int main()
{
    aClass a; 
}

它会导致错误。这段代码试图将构造函数声明为虚函数。 现在让我们试着理解为什么要使用virtual关键字。Virtual关键字用于提供运行时多态性。例如，试试这段代码。

#include<iostream.h>
using namespace std;
class aClass
{
    public:
        aClass()
        {
            cout<<"aClass contructor\n";
        }
        ~aClass()
        {
            cout<<"aClass destructor\n";
        }

};
class anotherClass:public aClass
{

    public:
        anotherClass()
        {
            cout<<"anotherClass Constructor\n";
        }
        ~anotherClass()
        {
            cout<<"anotherClass destructor\n";
        }

};
int main()
{
    aClass* a;
    a=new anotherClass;
    delete a;   
    getchar(); 
}

In main a=new anotherClass; allocates a memory for anotherClass in a pointer a declared as type of aClass.This causes both the constructor (In aClass and anotherClass) to call automatically.So we do not need to mark constructor as virtual.Because when an object is created it must follow the chain of creation (i.e first the base and then the derived classes). But when we try to delete a delete a; it causes to call only the base destructor.So we have to handle the destructor using virtual keyword. So virtual constructor is not possible but virtual destructor is.Thanks