Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
menu search
person
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

class P
{
};

template< typename P >
class C : public P
{
  public:
  void f()
  {
    P::f();
  }
};

int main() {
  C<P> c1;
  return 0;
}

Just in case my question leaves any room for misunderstanding, here is a code example. If C was not templated but inherited from P directly, then the sample would fail to compile because clearly function f() attempts to call a function on base class P which is non-existent.

However if C is templated then this is only picked up if f() is actually called.

I'd like to know why there is this difference. In both instances f() would be dead code and stripped anyway, yet the program is ill-formed in the non-template scenario.

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
195 views
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

Actually, the program you posted is not ill-formed. While the "implicit instantiation" C<P> c1; instantiates all member declarations,

the specialization of the member is implicitly instantiated when the specialization is referenced in a context that requires the member definition to exist

[N4140, 14.7.1(2)] Since you never use C<P>::f, its definition is never needed and thus never instantiated.

This is different to an "explicit instantiation" like

template class C<P>;

which would instantiate the definition of all members of C<P> and thus result in an error.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
...