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>

What does a straight horizontal line above a few notes, after a changed tempo mean?

Do I need to watch Ant-Man and the Wasp and Captain Marvel before watching Avengers: Endgame?

"My boss was furious with me and I have been fired" vs. "My boss was furious with me and I was fired"

How can I wire a 9-position switch so that each position turns on one more LED than the one before?

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

Older movie/show about humans on derelict alien warship which refuels by passing through a star

Co-worker works way more than he should

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

Is Bran literally the world's memory?

Double-nominative constructions and “von”

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

How to not starve gigantic beasts

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

Is accepting an invalid credit card number a security issue?

What is /etc/mtab in Linux?

Bayes factor vs P value

Tikz positioning above circle exact alignment

Mistake in years of experience in resume?

Is it possible to cast 2x Final Payment while sacrificing just one creature?

Intern got a job offer for same salary than a long term team member

My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?

Has a Nobel Peace laureate ever been accused of war crimes?

Map material from china not allowed to leave the country

Why do games have consumables?



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;








10















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
    1 hour ago











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

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    1 hour ago






  • 1





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

    – Max Langhof
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago

















10















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
    1 hour ago











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

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    1 hour ago






  • 1





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

    – Max Langhof
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago













10












10








10








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 2 hours ago









ypnos

37.2k1377113




37.2k1377113










asked 2 hours ago









gaurav bharadwajgaurav bharadwaj

522618




522618












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

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    1 hour ago











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

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    1 hour ago






  • 1





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

    – Max Langhof
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour ago











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

    – gaurav bharadwaj
    1 hour ago






  • 1





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

    – Max Langhof
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
    1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago













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

– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago





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

– gaurav bharadwaj
1 hour ago




1




1





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

– Max Langhof
1 hour ago





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

– Max Langhof
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















16














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


















  • 1





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    1 hour ago


















8














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









    16














    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


















    • 1





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      1 hour ago















    16














    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


















    • 1





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      1 hour ago













    16












    16








    16







    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 1 hour ago









    Michael KenzelMichael Kenzel

    8,68811525




    8,68811525







    • 1





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      1 hour ago












    • 1





      That's a good find from GCC manual.

      – P.W
      1 hour ago







    1




    1





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    1 hour ago





    That's a good find from GCC manual.

    – P.W
    1 hour ago













    8














    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



























      8














      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

























        8












        8








        8







        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 1 hour ago









        ArkadiyArkadiy

        18.2k559102




        18.2k559102



























            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

            Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

            The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу