std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while naked pointer shows it. Why? Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why unique-ptr doesn't check base class to virtual destructible?Does delete work with pointers to base class?Why does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?Why simple destructor does not delete the derived object if declared using base pointerCalling a Derived Class method from a Void Pointer cast to a Base Objectclang & gcc don't warn about non-virtual base destructors for polymorphism when using smart pointers?Why is initialization of derived class through a base class pointer different from that through a derived class pointer?Destructor when derived class contains a pointer to base class objectUsing base class rather than base pointer to work on derived classHow to prevent a derived class object under base class pointer calling a public nonvirtual function defined in base class but overridden in derived?How can I convert std::make_unique<derived>() to std::unique_ptr<base>

Ramp colors through selected symbols in QGIS?

Why do real positive eigenvalues result in an unstable system? What about eigenvalues between 0 and 1? or 1?

How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?

Are there moral objections to a life motivated purely by money? How to sway a person from this lifestyle?

Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)

Why must Chinese maps be obfuscated?

How to have a sharp product image?

Can you stand up from being prone using Skirmisher outside of your turn?

How do I reattach a shelf to the wall when it ripped out of the wall?

How much of a wave function must reside inside event horizon for it to be consumed by the black hole?

What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?

Is it acceptable to use working hours to read general interest books?

Nails holding drywall

How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?

How important is it that $TERM is correct?

What was Apollo 13's "Little Jolt" after MECO?

How to keep bees out of canned beverages?

Contradiction proof for inequality of P and NP?

Complex numbers z=-3-4i polar form

Will I lose my paid in full property

What is the term for a person whose job is to place products on shelves in stores?

How can I see the price of an app I already purchased on the Google Play Store?

What does **function** actually mean in music?

What's the difference between using dependency injection with a container and using a service locator?



std::unique_ptr of base class holding reference of derived class does not show warning in gcc compiler while naked pointer shows it. Why?



Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experience
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!Why unique-ptr doesn't check base class to virtual destructible?Does delete work with pointers to base class?Why does an overridden function in the derived class hide other overloads of the base class?Why simple destructor does not delete the derived object if declared using base pointerCalling a Derived Class method from a Void Pointer cast to a Base Objectclang & gcc don't warn about non-virtual base destructors for polymorphism when using smart pointers?Why is initialization of derived class through a base class pointer different from that through a derived class pointer?Destructor when derived class contains a pointer to base class objectUsing base class rather than base pointer to work on derived classHow to prevent a derived class object under base class pointer calling a public nonvirtual function defined in base class but overridden in derived?How can I convert std::make_unique<derived>() to std::unique_ptr<base>



.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;








16















I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.



class Base

public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;

class Derived : public Base

public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;


Now if i do like this:



int main()

Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;



It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.



But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.



int main()

std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());

return 0;



I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.










share|improve this question
























  • @AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago











  • @ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

    – Max Langhof
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

    – Daniel Langr
    6 hours ago







  • 1





    @DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago

















16















I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.



class Base

public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;

class Derived : public Base

public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;


Now if i do like this:



int main()

Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;



It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.



But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.



int main()

std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());

return 0;



I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.










share|improve this question
























  • @AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago











  • @ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

    – Max Langhof
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

    – Daniel Langr
    6 hours ago







  • 1





    @DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago













16












16








16








I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.



class Base

public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;

class Derived : public Base

public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;


Now if i do like this:



int main()

Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;



It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.



But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.



int main()

std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());

return 0;



I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.










share|improve this question
















I have a hierarchy of base class and derived class. Base class has one virtual function which is overridden by derived class.



class Base

public:
~Base();
virtual void other_functionality() = 0;
;

class Derived : public Base

public:
~Derived ();
void other_functionality() //some code;
;


Now if i do like this:



int main()

Base * P = new Derived ();
delete p;
return 0;



It gives error:
deleting object of polymorphic class type which has non-virtual destructor.



But with unique_ptr it passes without warning.



int main()

std::unique_ptr<Base> p;
p.reset(new Derived ());

return 0;



I know if I use virtual destructor. Warning with naked pointer will be solved. But question remains - why absence of virtual destructor shows problem with naked pointer and not with unique_ptr.







c++ c++14 gcc-warning






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









ypnos

37.2k1377113




37.2k1377113










asked 7 hours ago









gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj

552618




552618












  • @AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago











  • @ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

    – Max Langhof
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

    – Daniel Langr
    6 hours ago







  • 1





    @DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago

















  • @AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago











  • @ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

    – Max Langhof
    6 hours ago






  • 1





    @P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

    – Daniel Langr
    6 hours ago







  • 1





    @DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago
















@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

– gaurav bharadwaj
7 hours ago





@AndriyTylychko unique_ptr exist in boost too and behavior of that and std::unique_ptr has lot of similarity. Isn't it.

– gaurav bharadwaj
7 hours ago













@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

– gaurav bharadwaj
7 hours ago





@ypnos do you not agree with above comment of mine?

– gaurav bharadwaj
7 hours ago




1




1





For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

– Max Langhof
6 hours ago





For the record, clang does complain: godbolt.org/z/qEp6Ts

– Max Langhof
6 hours ago




1




1





@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

– Daniel Langr
6 hours ago






@P.W I don't think this is a duplicate. At least, answers to both questions are different. (Answer to the original question is "because the Stadnard does not require such a check". Answer to this question is "because gcc supresses warnings for system headers".)

– Daniel Langr
6 hours ago





1




1





@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

– P.W
6 hours ago





@DanielLangr: The question seemed the same in essence. But the answers do not directly address why the compiler does not issue a diagnostic. So I will reopen.

– P.W
6 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















20














Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…



That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.






share|improve this answer


















  • 3





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago


















12














I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.



The warning is issued on the actual delete expression. In the case of unique_ptr, the delete is called inside a system header file.



According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.



Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:



https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html




The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.







share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55848866%2fstdunique-ptr-of-base-class-holding-reference-of-derived-class-does-not-show-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    20














    Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…



    That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 3





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      6 hours ago















    20














    Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…



    That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.






    share|improve this answer


















    • 3





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      6 hours ago













    20












    20








    20







    Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…



    That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.






    share|improve this answer













    Well, first of all, deleting a derived object through a base pointer when the base class does not have a virtual destructor is undefined behavior. Compilers are not required to diagnose undefined behavior…



    That being said, the reason why this warning does not appear when using std::unique_ptr is most likely due to the fact that GCC does not report warnings that would appear in system headers.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 6 hours ago









    Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel

    8,68811525




    8,68811525







    • 3





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      6 hours ago












    • 3





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      6 hours ago







    3




    3





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    6 hours ago













    12














    I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.



    The warning is issued on the actual delete expression. In the case of unique_ptr, the delete is called inside a system header file.



    According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.



    Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:



    https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html




    The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.







    share|improve this answer



























      12














      I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.



      The warning is issued on the actual delete expression. In the case of unique_ptr, the delete is called inside a system header file.



      According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.



      Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:



      https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html




      The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.







      share|improve this answer

























        12












        12








        12







        I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.



        The warning is issued on the actual delete expression. In the case of unique_ptr, the delete is called inside a system header file.



        According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.



        Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:



        https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html




        The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.







        share|improve this answer













        I cannot find a link, but I did see a discussion of this online, in GCC bug database.



        The warning is issued on the actual delete expression. In the case of unique_ptr, the delete is called inside a system header file.



        According to the discussion in that bug report, implementing C++ system libraries requires all sorts of compromises that result in various warnings. Therefore, the warnings are restricted inside system headers. That is the reason you won't see the warning you expect.



        Update: and here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:



        https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/System-Headers.html




        The header files declaring interfaces to the operating system and runtime libraries often cannot be written in strictly conforming C. Therefore, GCC gives code found in system headers special treatment. All warnings, other than those generated by ‘#warning’ (see Diagnostics), are suppressed while GCC is processing a system header.








        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        ArkadiyArkadiy

        18.2k559103




        18.2k559103



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55848866%2fstdunique-ptr-of-base-class-holding-reference-of-derived-class-does-not-show-w%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            六本木駅

            Integral that is continuous and looks like it converges to a geometric seriesTesting if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinitySummation of arithmetic-geometric series of higher orderGeometric series with polynomial exponentHow to Recognize a Geometric SeriesShowing an integral equality with series over the integersDiscontinuity of a series of continuous functionsReasons why a Series ConvergesSum of infinite geometric series with two terms in summationUsing geometric series for computing IntegralsLimit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$

            Joseph Lister