第一条就是: const原则：在C++中最好趋向与使用const来修饰它前面的那个类型。

如：const int a;和int const b；中，虽然两种具有相同的意义，但是最好利用后面的那种情况，后面的更加可读，因为：int const我们可以很清楚地看到const是修饰int,而前面的那种方法中，我们就不那么轻易知道到底const 的具体涵义。由后面的那种方法我们可以知道const指一个恒定的整形。Int *const b，指的是一个恒定的指针b，这个指针指向一个整型，所以这个指针的内容可以改变，但是它的指针值也就是b的值不能变，相应的int const *b，指的是一个指向恒定整型内容的指针b，也就是说这个b的内容可以变，但是开始的b所指向的地址中的内容不能在程序当中通过b来改变。

volatile对上面的原则也适用。
使用类型T做为类型变量已经作为了模板参数的惯例，用来表示函数或者类所接受的类型参量可以用所有的类型。

在C++的模板的类型参量前，最好尽量使用typename来代替class。
在编译时期，模板被编译两次；
实例化之前：检查模板代码本身，查看语法是否正确；
在实例化期间，检查模板代码，查看是否所有的调用都有效。

当使用函数模板，并且引发模板实例化的时候，编译器需要查看模板定义。
在函数实参的类型的推导中，如果类型出现不匹配现象则会出现编译错误。如果要解决这编译错误则有以下几种方法解决：
对传入的实参进行类型转换成匹配类型后传入。
显示指定模板函数的全特化（不能为偏特化，因为函数不支持偏特化）类型。
例子如下所示：

在模板函数内部不能指定默认的模板参数。
函数不能采用偏特化的方法来实现类型的递归，但是它可以利用函数重载的方法来实现类型的转换。

相对于8而言类能使用偏特化的方法来实现类型的递归，并且它的仿函数也可以使用重载operator()来实现函数重载方法。但是它的一个问题就是在调用仿函数的时候一定要加上它的实例化参数类型，以及调用它的构造函数。

函数调用的时候可以采用由参数的类型来反推函数的模板参数，这是仿函数所不能的。所以我们在编程的过程当中一定要注意这些不同技术之间的优点和不足，看看哪些更适合我们。

在调用非标准函数的时候最好要与调用标准函数区分开来，这样不致于使用程序产生歧义的错误。做法是：在变量或者函数的前面加上全局标识符::。

全新计算机书籍转让

联系人:赵小姐, 联系电话:
白天: 025-83909202(小灵通)
晚上: 025-83408282
Email:xiaomeng_zhao#yahoo.com.cn
(注意将上面Email的将#换成@噢!)

转让如下(南京以外的城市可能要邮购了):

最新消息 - 新增3本超值特价书
--------------------------
1. 人邮出版的"Visual C++ 网络开发技术"

2. 清华出版的"Windows 2000/XP中文版注册表使用开发与案例"

3. 中国水利水电出版社的"ATM网络技术"

--------------------------

英文书名: Sams Teach Yourself C# in 21 Days
中文书名: 21天学通C#
作者: Bradley L. Jones
授权出版社: Sams
被授权出版社: 人民邮电出版社
成色: 全新
原价: 60元
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)

英文书名: Programming Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Visual Basic .Net
中文书名: Microsoft Windows程序设计 - Visual Basic .NET语言描述
作者: Charles Petzold (由 章立民 翻译)
授权出版社: Microsoft
被授权出版社: 华中科技大学出版社
成色: 全新
原价: 118元
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)

书名:  精通Visual Basic .NET中文版
作者: 刘炳文教授(谭浩强工作室)
出版社: 机械工业出版社
成色: 全新
原价: 66元
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)

书名: PowerBuilder应用与开发
出版社: 机械工业出版社
成色: 全新
原价: 49元
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)


书名: 中文Visual Basic高级编程
出版社: 清华大学出版社
成色: 几乎全新
原价: 29.8
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)

书名: Visual Basic实用技术指南
出版社: 人民邮电出版社
成色: 9成新
原价: 38元
折扣率: 同为读书人, 您看打几折合适吧
现价: 您看着给吧:)

长期不变的FTP账号

极品匿名ftp
ftp://219.157.126.10

影视FTP(太原理工大学终极网域FTP)
ftp://finalmov:finalmov@202.207.240.119

ftp://sangel.xicp.net

荥经电信(综合,速度快)

ftp://yjdx:yjdx@202.98.141.74

极品匿名ftp(电影娱乐类,内容丰富)

ftp://219.157.126.10

综合FTP
ftp://www.mx3x.com :< wind_code_1 >

高速ftp,不要密码,东西暴多!!!
ftp://221.224.20.206

武汉安全网ftp
ftp://315safe:315safe@ftp.315safe.com

KingSExftp   带宽：网通100m
ftp://bbs.winzheng.com:loveyou@218.56.97.189
影视连续剧音乐FTP：

QUOTE:
ftp://221.224.20.206

ftp://202.198.35.153

超好的音乐FTP:
ftp://219.153.2.114/

非匿名   石狮影视的临时帐号：
ftp://石狮影视免费下载:bbs.yssn.com石狮影视@ftp1.ssdvd.com:21

蓝魂主力FTP:
ftp.bluesma.com:3131
帐号：蓝魂主力服务器
密码：蓝魂论坛精彩无限 http://www.bluesma.com[/url ]

匿名电影ftp
202.102.234.88

兰荫补档区主力1号
ftp://ly_budang:reqisthebest123@ftp1.lanyin.net/

天香APE音乐
ftp://rt_admin:3166admin@hclhcl7.vicp.net:3000

烟雨江南影视FTP
ftp://烟雨江南:bbs.tc.cn@ftp.wolf2000.com/

ftp站点（dvd）
ftp://dvd:dvd@210.34.14.166:2121

ftp://ydy.com.high:qSDMPJASo7XTBz@ftp.tzssyxx.com/

ftp://shiyushen.vicp.net
用户名：down
密码：fox**fox**down
学校教育的FTP:

QUOTE:
匿名ftp(化学数学软件等)
ftp://210.34.15.126/pub/

香港中文大学（使用Flashfxp的请将“使用被动模式”前面的勾取消就可以登录了。）
ftp://ftp.cs.cuhk.edu.hk

太原理工 
ftp://202.207.240.119

ftp://fszc1@57333.com
ftp://fpdayl1@57333.com

交大FTP
ftp://cate:73610@202.117.28.20/

三明高等专科学校
ftp://smu:smc@218.5.241.10/

ftp://210.27.144.7/mpeg/

湖北国土资源职业学院下载

ftp://ftp.hbgt.com.cn/

浙江大学远程教学ftp
ftp://teach.zj.edu.cn
账号： ftpuser
密码： xt38kma7

浙江广播电视大学平阳分校FTP

ftp://61.153.14.194/

这个论坛实在是好呀，特把自己收藏的教育网内的ftp拿出来给大家分享！
1.   ftp://scau:scau@ftp1.scau.edu.cn:8021 ;游戏＋软件 （“使用被动模式”！）

2.   ftp://scau:scau@ftp2.scau.edu.cn:8021 ;电视剧

3.   ftp://scau:scau@ftp3.scau.edu.cn:8021 ;电影

一个学习的ftp，目录为：sf图书、Software、study，单线程，速度一般。
ftp://sf:xjtumba@swds.3322.org
一个高校的ftp，资料下载帐号 ，使用“被动模式”。
ftp://61.153.29.19
同济大学的电子书库FTP
ftp://202.120.165.151
成都理工大学
ftp://ftp.cdut.edu.cn

教授论坛FTP

ftp://202.113.31.180/

一高中的FTP里面有好多东东，速度200k
ftp://teacher:lg2005@ftp.lxyg.net  

香港中文大学Ftp
ftp://ftp.cuhk.hk

FTP，（学习，游戏，电影）
ftp://211.86.94.57
ftp://211.86.49.66
ftp://edutc1.hyit.edu.cn
这3个指向同一目录。

ftp://210.27.234.1
ftp://202.117.47.49
这两也个指向同一目录

甘肃电大FTP
ftp://61.178.59.209/
内容：常用工具软件，电大数字图书馆，直播课堂资料，课件和四六级资料等
可以多线程下载，速度极快。
软件工具和教程类:

QUOTE:
超多软件下载一应俱全
ftp://ftp.hbgt.com.cn

一个软件FTP
ftp://61.132.90.12/

华军专用FTP
地址: ftp://soft.pcsoft.com.cn
用户名:soft
密码:softsoft

很多软件,包括很多网管需要的软件(由TuTu2008提供)
ftp://61.152.101.129
用户名16288
密码都 16288

有效FTP包括LINUX和破解
ftp://fikusabe:928604@668y.com

发个超多软件的FTP,不用用户名的,不信的看图,看了的,就给顶下!
ftp://221.224.20.206

龙联论坛
ftp://down:bbs.51vip.net@downbbs.51vip.cn:29

ftp://218.6.43.31

软件和ASP源码FTP 刚发现的

ftp://downaspskynet:downaspskynet @< wind_code_2 >

播放软件、插件、工具下载（非视频下载）

ftp://hdtvsoft:hdtvsoft@ftp.hd-tv.cn

学习教材！ （lsq12345：使用迅雷依然能下。）

http://bbs.mumayi.net/viewthread ... &extra=page%3D1

小魔术视频表演、教程

ftp://fbitchs1@57333.com

电子图书书库 FTP下载3.12G（连接慢）

ftp://manao.xicp.net

杂志FTP(电子书)

ftp://tlfadv:deiejhjhhjt@tlfs90.3322.org:9988

深圳信息网FTP
ftp://cd:media@media.szwebs.net

驱动之家共享FTP

ftp://driversd:BBSDrivers1724@218.28.45.166/

常州市科技信息中心FTP

ftp://218.93.19.35/

--------------------------------

大量精彩FTP站点:

GNUCHINAFTP服务器 ftp.gnuchina.org
提供各种Linux*作系统镜像和应用软件供下载，不限制人数，但限制线程。

硅谷动力FTP服务器 ftp.esoftware.com.cn/
由ENET举办的FTP站点，提供各种共享软件、教程、代码下载，允许匿名访问和多线程下载。

中国下载FTP服务器1号 ftp.download.com.cn/
提供各种共享软件、免费软件供下载，允许匿名访问，人数限制2650。

中经网自由软件FTP服务器freesoft.cei.gov.cn/
由中国经济信息网举办，除提供了大量的Linux软件外，还设有众多的FTP站点镜像目录，允许匿
名访问。

中国下载FTP服务器2号ftp1.download.com.cn/
提供各种共享软件、免费软件供下载，允许匿名访问，人数限制1650，同时提供http网页导
航。

黄金眼FTP服务器202.205.10.22/
提供大量的游戏供下载，分为策略、动作、格斗、即时、角色、冒险、模拟、体育等目录，允许
匿名访问。

EastDoor亦多下载中心FTP服务器202.113.29.120/
提供Linux、Windows、Solaris、ISO文件等软件和电影供下载，允许匿名访问，每个IP最大线程
数3，人数限制100。

TurboLinuxFTP服务器 ftp.turbolinux.com.cn/
提供TurboLinux*作系统和各种Linux应用软件供下载，允许匿名访问。

蓝皮鼠临时FTP服务器cn-ftp.dhs.org/
提供各种软件、资料文档下载，允许匿名访问，单个IP线程最高为1。

深圳热线FTP服务器 ftp.szonline.net/
提供各种软件、游戏、编程资料下载，允许匿名访问，人数限制60。

中国经济信息网FTP服务器 ftp.cei.gov.cn/
提供经济类软件和研究资料下载，允许匿名访问。

中国工程技术FTP服务器 ftp.cetin.net.cn/
提供各种应用软件、编程软件供下载，允许匿名访问。

166.111.174.33(电影，软件)
166.111.184.48(电影，游戏，日剧)
166.111.215.143(东西很少，但是有机器猫1-49集下载)
166.111.215.175(东西不多，但是有不少大软件)
166.111.106.144(东西很杂，连上后进PUB目录，然后看内容提要吧)
166.111.107.91(音乐，软件)
166.111.136.248(好象都是一些3D的东东)
166.111.141.38(软件)
166.111.142.6(不少大的软件，音乐,CD就是放软件的目录)
166.111.147.51(音乐，特别是国外音乐很多，可惜限了速100K)
166.111.136.2(不少大软件和ISO的东东)
166.111.14.199(软件，电影，MP3，还有一些BOOK)
166.111.25.5(软件，电影，连续剧,走遍美国等……)
166.111.2.114(软件)
166.111.26.145(正在学习英文的朋友可以来这里,不少书喔)
166.111.33.64(东西很少，软件，电影)
166.111.36.151(不少好的软件喔..)
166.111.37.6(软件)
166.111.37.82(软件)
166.111.41.149(音乐)
166.111.41.172(音乐和一些电影的小片段)
166.111.49.106(书刊)
166.111.60.198(软件)
166.111.53.55(书刊，教程)
166.111.53.84(很多ISO的好东东)
166.111.55.29(软件)
166.111.61.200(电影)
166.111.61.232(军事)
166.111.62.19(不少ISO的大东东，其中包括有MSDN)
166.111.62.245(音乐)
166.111.70.51(软件)

利用MFC的Csocket类实现网络通信

Mail

/********************************************\
|    欢迎转载, 但请保留作者姓名和原文链接, 祝您进步并共勉!     |
\********************************************/

C++对象模型(14) - 3.6 Pointer to Data Members
作者: Jerry Cat
时间: 2006/11/23
链接:  http://www.cppblog.com/jerysun0818/archive/2006/11/23/15593.html

3.6 Pointer to Data Members:
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the following Point3d class declaration. It declares a virtual function, a static data member, and three coordinate values:

class Point3d {
public:
   virtual ~Point3d(); //虚表指针的位置"非头即尾"
   // ...
protected:
   static Point3d origin;
   float x, y, z;
};

What does it mean, then, to take the address of one of the coordinate members? For example, what value should the following yield?

&3d_point::z;
It is going to yield the z-coordinate's offset within the class object. Minimally, this has to be the size of the x and y members, since the language requires the members within an access level be set down in the order of declaration.

3.6 Pointer to Data Members
Pointers to data members are a somewhat arcane but useful feature of the language, particularly if you need to probe at the underlying member layout of a class. One example of such a probing might be to determine if the vptr is placed at the beginning or end of the class. A second use, presented in Section 3.2, might be to determine the ordering of access sections within the class. As I said, it's an arcane, although potentially useful, language feature.

Consider the following Point3d class declaration. It declares a virtual function, a static data member, and three coordinate values:

class Point3d {
public:
   virtual ~Point3d();
   // ...
protected:
   static Point3d origin;
   float x, y, z;
};
The member layout for each Point3d class object contains the three coordinate values in the order x, y, z and a vptr. (Recall that origin, the static data member, is hoisted outside the individual class object.) The only implementation aspect of the layout is the placement of the vptr. The Standard permits the vptr to be placed anywhere within the object: at the beginning, at the end, or in between either of the three members. In practice, all implementations place it either at the beginning or at the end.

What does it mean, then, to take the address of one of the coordinate members? For example, what value should the following yield?

&3d_point::z;
It is going to yield the z-coordinate's offset within the class object. Minimally, this has to be the size of the x and y members, since the language requires the members within an access level be set down in the order of declaration.

At the compiler's discretion, however, the vptr may be placed either before, in-between, or after the coordinate members. Again, in practice, the vptr is either placed at the beginning or at the end of the class object. On a 32-bit machine, floats are 4 bytes each, so we would expect the value to be either 8 bytes without an intervening vptr or 12 bytes with it. (The vptr, and pointers in general, use 4 bytes on a 32-bit architecture.)
 
That expectation, however, is off by one—a somewhat traditional error for both C and C++ programmers.

The physical offset of the three coordinate members within the class layout are, respectively, either 0, 4, and 8 if the vptr is placed at the end or 4, 8, and 12 if the vptr is placed at the start of the class. The value returned from taking the member's address, however, is always bumped up by 1. Thus the actual values are 1, 5, and 9, and so on. Do you see why Bjarne decided to do that?

The problem is distinguishing between a pointer to no data member and a pointer to the first data member. Consider for example:

float Point3d::*p1 = 0;
float Point3d::*p2 = &Point3d::x;

// oops: how to distinguish?
if ( p1 == p2 ) {
   cout << " p1 & p2 contain the same value — ";
   cout << " they must address the same member!" << endl;
}

To distinguish between p1 and p2, each actual member offset value is bumped up by 1. Hence, both the compiler (and the user) must remember to subtract 1 before actually using the value to address a member.

Given what we now know about pointers to data members, we find that explaining the difference between

&Point3d::z;
and
&origin.z

is straightforward. Whereas taking the address of a nonstatic data member yields its offset within the class, taking the address of a data member bound to an actual class object yields the member's actual address in memory. The result of

&origin.z
adds the offset of z (minus 1) to the beginning address of origin. origin是个实例化的类Point3d的静态数据成员. The value returned is of type

float*
not
float Point3d::*

because it refers to an specific single instance(静态成员属于类而非类的各具体实例对象), much the same as taking the address of a static data member.

Under multiple inheritance, the combination of a second (or subsequent) base class pointer to a member bound to a derived class object is complicated by the offset that needs to be added. For example, if we have

struct Base1 { int val1; };
struct Base2 { int val2; };
struct Derived : Base1, Base2 { ... };

void func1( int d::*dmp, d *pd )
{
   // expects a derived pointer to member
   // what if we pass it a base pointer?
   pd->*dmp;
}
void func2( d *pd )
{
   // assigns bmp 1
   int b2::*bmp = &b2::val2;

   // oops: bmp == 1,
   // but in Derived, val2 == 5
   func1( bmp, pd )
}
bmp must be adjusted by the size of the intervening Base1 class when passed as the first argument to func1(). Otherwise, the invocation of

pd->*dmp;
within func1() will access Base1::val1, not Base2::val2 as the programmer intended. The specific solution in this case is

// internal transformation by compiler
func1( bmp + sizeof( Base1 ), pd );
In general, however, we cannot guarantee that bmp is not 0 and so must guard against it:

// internal transformation
// guarding against bmp == 0
func1( bmp ? bmp + sizeof( Base1 ) : 0, pd );

二. Efficiency of Pointers to Members:

The following sequence of tests attempts to gain some measure of the overhead associated with using pointers to members under the various class representations of the 3D point. In the first two cases, there is no inheritance. The first case takes the address of a bound member:

float *ax = &pA.x;
for the three coordinate members of points pA and pB. The assignment, addition, and subtraction look as follows:

*bx = *ax - *bz;
*by = *ay + *bx;
*bz = *az + *by;
The second case takes the address of a pointer to data member:

float pt3d::*ax = &pt3d::x;
for the three coordinate members. The assignment, addition, and subtraction use the pointer to data member syntax, binding the values to the objects pA and pB:

pB.*bx = pA.*ax - pB.*bz;
pB.*by = pA.*ay + pB.*bx;
pB.*bz = pA.*az + pB.*by;
Recall that the direct data member exercise of this function, executed in Section 3.5, ran with an average user time of 0.80 with optimization turned on and 1.42 with optimization turned off for both compilers. The results of running these two tests, coupled with the results of the direct data access, are shown in Table 3.3:

Table 3.3. Nonstatic Data Member Access
   
                     Optimized       Non-optimized

Direct Access        0.80              1.42
Pointer to
   Bound Member      0.80              3.04
 
Pointer to
   Data Member
      CC             0.80              5.34
      NCC            4.04              5.34

The non-optimized results conform to expectations. That is, the addition of one indirection per member access through the bound pointer more than doubles the execution time. The pointer-to-member access again nearly doubles the execution time. The binding of the pointer to data member to the class object requires the addition of the offset minus 1 to the address of the object. More important, of course, the optimizer is able to bring the performance of all three access strategies into conformance, except the anomalous behavior of the NCC optimizer. (It is interesting to note here that the appalling performance of the NCC executable under optimization reflects a poor optimization of the generated assembly code and not an attribute of the source-level C++ code. An examination of the generated non-optimized assembly for both CC and NCC showed the two outputs to be identical.)

The next set of tests looks at the impact of inheritance on the performance of pointers to data members. In the first case, the independent Point class is redesigned into a three-level single inheritance hierarchy with one coordinate value as a member of each class:

class Point { ... }; // float x;
class Point2d : public Point   { ... }; // float y;
class Point3d : public Point2d { ... }; // float z;
The next representation retains the three-level single inheritance hierarchy but introduces one level of virtual inheritance: the Point2d class is virtually derived from Point. As a result, each access of Point::x is now accessing a virtual base class data member. Then, more out of curiosity than need, the final representation added a second level of virtual inheritance, that of Point3d being virtually derived from Point2d. Table 3.4 shows the results. (Note: The poor performance of the NCC optimizer was consistent across the tests, so I've left it off the listing.)

Table 3.4. Pointer to Data Member Access
   
                     Optimized   %   Non-optimized
 
No Inheritance       0.80              5.34
SI (3 levels)        0.80              5.34
VI (1 level)         1.60              5.44
VI (2 level)         2.14              5.51
 
SI:  Single Inheritance       VI:  Virtual Inheritance

Because inherited data members are stored directly within the class object, the introduction of inheritance does not affect the performance of the code at all. The major impact of introducing virtual inheritance is to impede the effectiveness of the optimizer. Why? In these two implementations, each level of virtual inheritance introduces an additional level of indirection. Under both implementations, each access of Point::x, such as

pB.*bx
is translated into
&pB->__vbcPoint + ( bx - 1 )

rather than the more direct
&pB + ( bx - 1 )

The additional indirection reduced the ability of the optimizer to move all the processing into registers.

/********************************************\
|    欢迎转载, 但请保留作者姓名和原文链接, 祝您进步并共勉!     |
\********************************************/

C++对象模型(13) - 3.5 Object Member Efficiency
作者: Jerry Cat
时间: 2006/11/17
链接:  http://www.cppblog.com/jerysun0818/archive/2006/11/17/15311.html

3.5 Object Member Efficiency
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------

An obvious observation is that without the optimizer turned on, it is extremely difficult to guess at the performance characteristics of a program, since the code is potentially hostage to the "quirk(s) of code generation…unique to a particular compiler." Before one begins source level "optimizations" to speed up a program, one should always do actual performance measurements rather than relying on speculation and common sense.不要想当然, 要试验之.

In the next sequence of tests, I introduced first a three-level single inheritance representation of the Point abstraction and then a virtual inheritance representation of the Point abstraction. I tested both direct and inline access (multiple inheritance did not fit naturally into the model, so I decided to forego it.) The general hierarchy is

class Point1d {...};                           // maintains x
class Point2d : public Point1d {...};     // maintains y
class Point3d : public Point2d {...};     // maintains z

The one-level virtual inheritance derived Point2d virtually from Point1d. The two-level virtual inheritance additionally derived Point3d virtually from Point2d. Table 3.2 lists the results of running the tests for both compilers. (Again, I break out the times for the two compilers only when their performances differ significantly from each other's.)

Table 3.2. Data Access under Inheritance Models

                                     Optimized       Non-optimized
Single Inheritance
     Direct Access           0.80                 1.42
     Inline Methods
     CC                           0.80                2.55
     NCC                        0.80                3.10
 
Virtual Inheritance — 1-Level
     Direct Access            1.60              1.94
     Inline Methods
     CC                            1.60              2.75
     NCC                         1.60              3.30
 
Virtual Inheritance — 2-Level
     Direct Access
     CC                            2.25              2.74
     NCC                         3.04              3.68
 
    Inline Methods
     CC                            2.25              3.22
     NCC                         2.50              3.81
 
Single inheritance should not affect the test performance, since the members are stored contiguously within the derived class object and their offsets are known at compile time. The results, as expected, were exactly the same as those of the independent abstract data type. (The same should be true under multiple inheritance, but I didn't confirm that.)

Again, it is worth noting that with the optimizer off, performance, which common sense says should be the same (direct member access versus inline access), is in practice slower in the case of inline functions. The lesson again is that the programmer concerned with efficiency must actually measure the performance of his or her program and not leave the measurement of the program to speculation and assumption. It is also worth noting that optimizers don't always work. I've more than once had compilations fail with an optimizer turned on that compiled fine "normally."别想当然, 实验之! 编译时尽可能打开优化开关.

The virtual inheritance performance is disappointing in that neither compiler recognized that the access of the inherited data member pt1d::_x is through a nonpolymorphic class object and that therefore indirect runtime access is unnecessary. Both compilers generate indirect access of pt1d::_x (and pt1d::y in the case of two levels of virtual inheritance), even though its location within the two Point3d objects is fixed at compile time. The indirection significantly inhibited the optimizer's ability to move all the operations within registers. The indirection did not affect the non-optimized executables significantly.
虚继承导致性能大降, 即使打开优化开关也没太大起色.

/********************************************\
|    欢迎转载, 但请保留作者姓名和原文链接, 祝您进步并共勉!     |
\********************************************/

C++对象模型(12) - 3.4 Inheritance and the Data Member
作者: Jerry Cat
时间: 2006/11/16
链接:  http://www.cppblog.com/jerysun0818/archive/2006/11/16/15269.html

3.4 Inheritance and the Data Member
;-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the C++ inheritance model, a derived class object is represented as the concatenation of its members with those of its base class(es). The actual ordering of the derived and base class parts is left unspecified by the Standard. In theory, a compiler is free to place either the base or the derived part first in the derived class object. In practice, the base class members always appear first, except in the case of a virtual base class. (In general, the handling of a virtual base class is an exception to all generalities, even, of course, this one.)

class Concrete1 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   int val;
   char bit1;
};
class Concrete2 : public Concrete1 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   char bit2;
};

class Concrete3 : public Concrete2 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   char bit3;
};
From a design standpoint, this representation may make more sense. From an implementation standpoint, however, we may be distressed to find that a Concrete3 class object now has a size of 16 bytes—double its previous size.

What's going on? Recall that the issue is the integrity of the base class subobject within the derived class. Let's walk through the layout of the inheritance hierarchy to see what is going on.

The Concrete1 class contains the two members—val and bit1—that together take up 5 bytes. The size of a Concrete1 class object, however, is 8 bytes: the 5 bytes of actual size plus 3 bytes of padding to align the object on a machine word boundary. That's as true in C as it is in C++; generally, alignment constraints are determined by the underlying processor.

粗心的程序员可要倒霉咯!
Nothing necessarily to complain about so far. It's the layout of the derived class that typically drives the unwary programmer into fits of either perplexity or angry indignation. Concrete2 adds a single nonstatic data member, bit2, of type char. Our unwary programmer expects it to be packed into the base Concrete1 representation, taking up one of the bytes otherwise wasted as alignment padding. This layout strategy makes the Concrete2 class object also of size 8 bytes, with 2 bytes of padding.

The layout of the Concrete2 class, however, instead preserves the 3 bytes of padding within the Concrete1 base class subobject. The bit2 member is set down after that, followed by an additional 3 bytes of padding. The size of a Concrete2 class object is 12 bytes, not 8, with 6 bytes wasted for padding. The same layout algorithm results in a Concrete3 class object's being 16 bytes, 9 of which are wasted on padding.

Why? Let's declare the following set of pointers:

Concrete2 *pc2;
Concrete1 *pc1_1, *pc2_2;

Both pc1_1 and pc2_2 can address objects of either three classes. The following assignment

*pc1_1 = *pc2_2;
should perform a default memberwise copy of the Concrete1 portion of the object addressed. If pc1_1 addresses a Concrete2 or Concrete3 object, that should not be of consequence to the assignment of its Concrete1 subobject.

However, if the language were to pack the derived class members Concrete2::bit2 or Concrete3::bit3 into the Concrete1 subobject, these language semantics could not be preserved. An assignment such as

pc1_1 = pc2;

// oops: derived class subobject is overridden
// its bit2 member now has an undefined value
*pc1_1 = *pc2_2;
would overwrite the values of the packed inherited members. It would be an enormous effort on the user's part to debug this, to say the least.

二. Adding Polymorphism:
If we want to operate on a point independent of whether it is a Point2d or Point3d instance, we need to provide a virtual function interface within our hierarchy. Let's see how things change when we do that:

class Point2d {
public:
   Point2d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0 )
      : _x( x ), _y( y ) {};

   // access functions for x & y same as above
   // invariant across type: not made virtual

   // add placeholders for z — do nothing ...
   virtual float z(){ return 0.0 };
   virtual void z( float ) {}
   // turn type explicit operations virtual
   virtual void
   operator+=( const Point2d& rhs ) {
       _x += rhs.x(); _y += rhs.y(); }

   // ... more members
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};
It makes sense to introduce a virtual interface into our design only if we intend to manipulate two- and three-dimensional points polymorphically, that is, to write code such as

where p1 and p2 may be either two- or three-dimensional points. This is not something that any of our previous designs supported. This flexibility, of course, is at the heart of OO programming. Support for this flexibility, however, does introduce a number of space and access-time overheads for our Point2d class:

(1). Introduction of a virtual table associated with Point2d to hold the address of each virtual function it declares. The size of this table in general is the number of virtual functions declared plus an additional one or two slots to support runtime type identification.

(2). Introduction of the vptr within each class object. The vptr provides the runtime link for an object to efficiently find its associated virtual table.

(3). Augmentation of the constructor to initialize the object's vptr to the virtual table of the class. Depending on the aggressiveness of the compiler's optimization, this may mean resetting the vptr within the derived and each base class constructor. (This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.)

(4). Augmentation of the destructor to reset the vptr to the associated virtual table of the class. (It is likely to have been set to address the virtual table of the derived class within the destructor of the derived class. Remember, the order of destructor calls is in reverse: derived class and then base class.) An aggressive optimizing compiler can suppress a great many of these assignments.

Here is our new Point3d derivation:

class Point3d : public Point2d {
public:
   Point3d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0, float z = 0.0 )
      : Point2d( x, y ), _z( z ) {};
   float z() { return _z; }
   void z( float newZ ) { _z = newZ; }

   void operator+=( const Point2d& rhs ) {
      Point2d::operator+=( rhs );
      _z += rhs.z();
   }
   // ... more members
protected:
   float _z;
};

Although the syntax of the class's declaration has not changed, everything about it is now different: The two z() member functions and the operator+=() operator are virtual instances. Each Point3d class object contains an additional vptr member object (the instance inherited from Point2d). There is also a Point3d virtual table. The invocation of each member function made virtual is also more complex (this is covered in Chapter 4).

Placing the vptr at the start of the class is more efficient in supporting some virtual function invocations through pointers to class members under multiple inheritance (see Section 4.4). Otherwise, not only must the offset to the start of the class be made available at runtime, but also the offset to the location of the vptr of that class must be made available. The trade-off, however, is a loss in C language interoperability.

三. Multiple Inheritance:
Single inheritance provides a form of "natural" polymorphism regarding the conversion between base and derived types within the inheritance hierarchy. Look at Figures 3.1(b), 3.2(a), or 3.3, where you can see that the base and derived class objects both begin at the same address. They differ in that the derived object extends the length of its nonstatic data members. The assignment, such as

Point3d p3d;
Point2d *p = &p3d;
of the derived class object to a pointer or reference to the base class (regardless of the depth of the inheritance hierarchy) requires no compiler intervention or modification of the address. Instead, it happens "naturally," and in that sense, it provides optimal runtime efficiency.

From Figure 3.2(b), note that placing the vptr at the beginning of the class object breaks the natural polymorphism of single inheritance in the special case of a base class without virtual functions and a derived class with them. The conversion of the derived object to the base in this case requires the intervention of the compiler in order to adjust the address being assigned by the size of the vptr. Under both multiple and virtual inheritances, the need for compiler intervention is considerably more pronounced.

Multiple inheritance is neither as well behaved nor as easily modeled as single inheritance. The complexity of multiple inheritance lies in the "unnatural" relationship of the derived class with its second and subsequent base class subobjects. Consider, for example, the following multiply derived class, Vertex2d:

class Point2d {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};

class Vertex {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   Vertex *next;
};

class Vertex2d :
   public Point2d, public Vertex {
public:
   //...
protected:
   float mumble;
};
The problem of multiple inheritance primarily affects conversions between the derived and second or subsequent base class objects, either directly

extern void mumble( const Vertex& );
Vertex3d v;
...
// conversion of a Vertex3d to Vertex is ``unnatural''
mumble( v );
or through support for the virtual function mechanism. The problems with supporting virtual function invocation are discussed in Section 4.2.

The assignment of the address of a multiply derived object to a pointer of its leftmost (that is, first) base class is the same as that for single inheritance, since both point to the same beginning address. The cost is simply the assignment of that address (Figure 3.4 shows the multiple inheritance layout). The assignment of the address of a second or subsequent base class, however, requires that that address be modified by the addition (or subtraction in the case of a downcast) of the size of the intervening base class subobject(s).

What about access of a data member of a second or subsequent base class? Is there an additional cost? No. The member's location is fixed at compile time. Hence its access is a simple offset the same as under single inheritance regardless of whether it is a pointer, reference, or object through which the member is being accessed.

四. Virtual Inheritance:
A semantic side effect of multiple inheritance is the need to support a form of shared subobject inheritance. The classic example of this is the original iostream library implementation:

//pre-standard iostream implementation
class ios { ... };
class istream : public ios { ... };
class ostream : public ios { ... };
class iostream :
   public istream, public ostream { ... };
Both the istream and ostream classes contain an ios subobject. In the layout of iostream, however, we need only a single ios subobject. The language level solution is the introduction of virtual inheritance:

class ios { ... };
class istream : public virtual ios { ... };
class ostream : public virtual ios { ... };
class iostream :
   public istream, public ostream { ... };

The general implementation solution is as follows. A class containing one or more virtual base class subobjects, such as istream, is divided into two regions: an invariant region and a shared region. Data within the invariant region remains at a fixed offset from the start of the object regardless of subsequent derivations. So members within the invariant region can be accessed directly. The shared region represents the virtual base class subobjects. The location of data within the shared region fluctuates with each derivation. So members within the shared region need to be accessed indirectly. What has varied among implementations is the method of indirect access. The following example illustrates the three predominant strategies. Here is the data portion of a virtual Vertex3d inheritance hierarchy:

class Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};

class Vertex : public virtual Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   Vertex *next;
};

class Point3d : public virtual Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float _z;
};
class Vertex3d :
   public Point3d, public Vertex {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float mumble;
};
The general layout strategy is to first lay down the invariant region of the derived class and then build up the shared region.

However, one problem remains: How is the implementation to gain access to the shared region of the class? In the original cfront implementation, a pointer to each virtual base class is inserted within each derived class object. Access of the inherited virtual base class members is achieved indirectly through the associated pointer. For example, if we have the following Point3d operator:

void
Point3d::
operator+=( const Point3d &rhs )
{
   _x += rhs._x;
   _y += rhs._y;
   _z += rhs._z;
};
under the cfront strategy, this is transformed internally into

// Pseudo C++ Code
__vbcPoint2d->_x += rhs.__vbcPoint2d->_x;
__vbcPoint2d->_y += rhs.__vbcPoint2d->_y;
_z += rhs._z;

A conversion between the derived and base class instances, such as

Vertex *pv = pv3d;
under the cfront implementation model becomes

// Pseudo C++ code
Vertex *pv = pv3d ? pv3d->__vbcPoint2d : 0;

3.4 Inheritance and the Data Member
Under the C++ inheritance model, a derived class object is represented as the concatenation of its members with those of its base class(es). The actual ordering of the derived and base class parts is left unspecified by the Standard. In theory, a compiler is free to place either the base or the derived part first in the derived class object. In practice, the base class members always appear first, except in the case of a virtual base class. (In general, the handling of a virtual base class is an exception to all generalities, even, of course, this one.)

Given this inheritance model, one can ask: What is the difference in providing two abstract data types for the representation of two- and three-dimensional points, such as

// supporting abstract data types
class Point2d {
public:
   // constructor(s)
   // operations
   // access functions
private:
   float x, y;
};

class Point3d {
public:
   // constructor(s)
   // operations
   // access functions
private:
   float x, y, z;
};
and providing a two- or three-level hierarchy in which each additional dimension is a class derived from the lower dimension? In the following subsections, the effects of single inheritance without the support of virtual functions, single inheritance with virtual functions, multiple inheritance, and virtual inheritance are examined. Figure 3.1(a) pictures the layout of Point2d and Point3d objects. (In the absence of virtual functions, they are equivalent to C struct declarations.)

Figure 3.1(a). Data Layout: Independent Structs

Inheritance without Polymorphism
Imagine that the programmer wishes to share an implementation but continue to use type-specific instances of either the two- or three-dimensional point. One design strategy is to derive Point3d from our Point2d class, with Point 3d inheriting all the operations and maintenance of the x- and y-coordinates. The effect is to localize and share data and the operations upon that data among two or more related abstractions. In general, concrete inheritance adds no space or access-time overhead to the representation.

class Point2d {
public:
   Point2d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0 )
      : _x( x ), _y( y ) {};

   float x() { return _x; }
   float y() { return _y; }

   void x( float newX ) { _x = newX; }
   void y( float newY ) { _y = newY; }

   void operator+=( const Point2d& rhs ) {
      _x += rhs.x();
      _y += rhs.y();
   }
      // ... more members
   protected:
      float _x, _y;
   };

   // inheritance from concrete class
   class Point3d : public Point2d {
   public:
      Point3d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0, float z = 0.0 )
         : Point2d( x, y ), _z( z ) {};

      float z() { return _z; }
      void z( float newZ ) { _z = newZ; }

      void operator+=( const Point3d& rhs ) {
         Point2d::operator+=( rhs );
         _z += rhs.z();
      }
      // ... more members
   protected:
      float _z;
   };
The benefit of this design strategy is the localization of the code to manage the x- and y-coordinates. In addition, the design clearly indicates the tight coupling of the two abstractions. The declaration and use of both Point2d and Point3d class objects do not change from when the two classes were independent, so clients of these abstractions need not be aware of whether the objects are independent class types or related through inheritance. Figure 3.1(b) shows the layout of the Point2d and Point3d inheritance layout without the declaration of a virtual interface.

Figure 3.1(b). Data Layout: Single Inheritance without Virtual Functions

What are the possible pitfalls of transforming two independent classes into a type/subtype relationship through inheritance? A naive design might, in fact, double the number of function calls to perform the same operations. That is, say the constructor or operator+=() in our example were not made inline (or the compiler could not for some reason support the inlining of the member functions). The initialization or addition of a Point3d object would be the cost of the partial Point2d and Point3d instances. In general, choosing candidate functions for inlining is an important, if unglamorous, aspect of class design. Confirming that they are in fact inlined is necessary before final release of the implementation.

A second possible pitfall in factoring a class into a two-level or deeper hierarchy is a possible bloating of the space necessary to represent the abstraction as a class hierarchy. The issue is the language guarantee of the integrity of the base class subobject within the derived class. It's slightly subtle. A walk-through of an example might best explain it. Let's begin with a concrete class:

class Concrete {
public:
   // ...
private:
   int val;
   char c1;
   char c2;
   char c3;
};
On a 32-bit machine, the size of each Concrete class object is going to be 8 bytes, broken down as follows:

4 bytes for val

1 byte each for c1, c2, and c3

1 byte for the alignment of the class on a word boundary

Say, after some analysis, we decide that a more logical representation splits Concrete into a three-level inheritance hierarchy as follows:

class Concrete1 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   int val;
   char bit1;
};
class Concrete2 : public Concrete1 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   char bit2;
};

class Concrete3 : public Concrete2 {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   char bit3;
};
From a design standpoint, this representation may make more sense. From an implementation standpoint, however, we may be distressed to find that a Concrete3 class object now has a size of 16 bytes—double its previous size.

What's going on? Recall that the issue is the integrity of the base class subobject within the derived class. Let's walk through the layout of the inheritance hierarchy to see what is going on.

The Concrete1 class contains the two members—val and bit1—that together take up 5 bytes. The size of a Concrete1 class object, however, is 8 bytes: the 5 bytes of actual size plus 3 bytes of padding to align the object on a machine word boundary. That's as true in C as it is in C++; generally, alignment constraints are determined by the underlying processor.

Nothing necessarily to complain about so far. It's the layout of the derived class that typically drives the unwary programmer into fits of either perplexity or angry indignation. Concrete2 adds a single nonstatic data member, bit2, of type char. Our unwary programmer expects it to be packed into the base Concrete1 representation, taking up one of the bytes otherwise wasted as alignment padding. This layout strategy makes the Concrete2 class object also of size 8 bytes, with 2 bytes of padding.

The layout of the Concrete2 class, however, instead preserves the 3 bytes of padding within the Concrete1 base class subobject. The bit2 member is set down after that, followed by an additional 3 bytes of padding. The size of a Concrete2 class object is 12 bytes, not 8, with 6 bytes wasted for padding. The same layout algorithm results in a Concrete3 class object's being 16 bytes, 9 of which are wasted on padding.

"That's stupid," is the unwary programmer's judgment, which more than one has chosen to share with me over e-mail, on the phone, and in per-son. Do you see why the language behaves as it does?

Let's declare the following set of pointers:

Concrete2 *pc2;
Concrete1 *pc1_1, *pc2_2;
Both pc1_1 and pc2_2 can address objects of either three classes. The following assignment

*pc1_1 = *pc2_2;
should perform a default memberwise copy of the Concrete1 portion of the object addressed. If pc1_1 addresses a Concrete2 or Concrete3 object, that should not be of consequence to the assignment of its Concrete1 subobject.

However, if the language were to pack the derived class members Concrete2::bit2 or Concrete3::bit3 into the Concrete1 subobject, these language semantics could not be preserved. An assignment such as

pc1_1 = pc2;

// oops: derived class subobject is overridden
// its bit2 member now has an undefined value
*pc1_1 = *pc2_2;
would overwrite the values of the packed inherited members. It would be an enormous effort on the user's part to debug this, to say the least.

Adding Polymorphism
If we want to operate on a point independent of whether it is a Point2d or Point3d instance, we need to provide a virtual function interface within our hierarchy. Let's see how things change when we do that:

class Point2d {
public:
   Point2d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0 )
      : _x( x ), _y( y ) {};

   // access functions for x & y same as above
   // invariant across type: not made virtual

   // add placeholders for z — do nothing ...
   virtual float z(){ return 0.0 };
   virtual void z( float ) {}
   // turn type explicit operations virtual
   virtual void
   operator+=( const Point2d& rhs ) {
       _x += rhs.x(); _y += rhs.y(); }

   // ... more members
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};
It makes sense to introduce a virtual interface into our design only if we intend to manipulate two- and three-dimensional points polymorphically, that is, to write code such as

void foo( Point2d &p1, Point2d &p2 ) {
   // ...
   p1 += p2;
   // ...
}
where p1 and p2 may be either two- or three-dimensional points. This is not something that any of our previous designs supported. This flexibility, of course, is at the heart of OO programming. Support for this flexibility, however, does introduce a number of space and access-time overheads for our Point2d class:

Introduction of a virtual table associated with Point2d to hold the address of each virtual function it declares. The size of this table in general is the number of virtual functions declared plus an additional one or two slots to support runtime type identification.

Introduction of the vptr within each class object. The vptr provides the runtime link for an object to efficiently find its associated virtual table.

Augmentation of the constructor to initialize the object's vptr to the virtual table of the class. Depending on the aggressiveness of the compiler's optimization, this may mean resetting the vptr within the derived and each base class constructor. (This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.)

Augmentation of the destructor to reset the vptr to the associated virtual table of the class. (It is likely to have been set to address the virtual table of the derived class within the destructor of the derived class. Remember, the order of destructor calls is in reverse: derived class and then base class.) An aggressive optimizing compiler can suppress a great many of these assignments.

The impact of these overheads depends on the number and lifetime of the Point2d objects being manipulated and the benefits gained in programming the objects polymorphically. If an application knows its use of point objects is limited to either (but not both) two- or three-dimensional points, the overheads of this design may become unacceptable. [1]

[1] I am not aware of any production system actually making use of a polymorphic Point hierarchy.

Here is our new Point3d derivation:

class Point3d : public Point2d {
public:
   Point3d( float x = 0.0, float y = 0.0, float z = 0.0 )
      : Point2d( x, y ), _z( z ) {};
   float z() { return _z; }
   void z( float newZ ) { _z = newZ; }

   void operator+=( const Point2d& rhs ) {
      Point2d::operator+=( rhs );
      _z += rhs.z();
   }
   // ... more members
protected:
   float _z;
};
Although the syntax of the class's declaration has not changed, everything about it is now different: The two z() member functions and the operator+=() operator are virtual instances. Each Point3d class object contains an additional vptr member object (the instance inherited from Point2d). There is also a Point3d virtual table. The invocation of each member function made virtual is also more complex (this is covered in Chapter 4).

One current topic of debate within the C++ compiler community concerns where best to locate the vptr within the class object. In the original cfront implementation, it was placed at the end of the class object in order to support the following inheritance pattern, shown in Figure 3.2(a):

Figure 3.2(a). Vptr Placement and End of Class

struct no_virts {
   int d1, d2;
};
class has_virts: public no_virts {
public:
   virtual void foo();
   // ...
private:
   int d3;
};

no_virts *p = new has_virts;
Placing the vptr at the end of the class object preserves the object layout of the base class C struct, thus permitting its use within C code. This inheritance idiom is believed by many to have been more common when C++ was first introduced than currently.

Subsequent to Release 2.0, with its addition of support for multiple inheritance and abstract base classes, and the general rise in popularity of the OO paradigm, some implementations began placing the vptr at the start of the class object. (For example, Martin O'Riordan, who led Microsoft's original C++ compiler effort, persuasively argues for this implementation model.) See Figure 3.2(b) for an illustration.

Figure 3.2(b). Vptr Placement at Front of Class

Placing the vptr at the start of the class is more efficient in supporting some virtual function invocations through pointers to class members under multiple inheritance (see Section 4.4). Otherwise, not only must the offset to the start of the class be made available at runtime, but also the offset to the location of the vptr of that class must be made available. The trade-off, however, is a loss in C language interoperability. How significant a loss? What percentage of programs derive a polymorphic class from a C-lan-guage struct? There are currently no empirical numbers to support either position.

Figure 3.3 shows the Point2d and Point3d inheritance layout with the addition of virtual functions. (Note: The figure shows the vptr placement at the end of the base class.)

Figure 3.3. Data Layout: Single Inheritance with Virtual Inheritance

Multiple Inheritance
Single inheritance provides a form of "natural" polymorphism regarding the conversion between base and derived types within the inheritance hierarchy. Look at Figures 3.1(b), 3.2(a), or 3.3, where you can see that the base and derived class objects both begin at the same address. They differ in that the derived object extends the length of its nonstatic data members. The assignment, such as

Point3d p3d;
Point2d *p = &p3d;
of the derived class object to a pointer or reference to the base class (regardless of the depth of the inheritance hierarchy) requires no compiler intervention or modification of the address. Instead, it happens "naturally," and in that sense, it provides optimal runtime efficiency.

From Figure 3.2(b), note that placing the vptr at the beginning of the class object breaks the natural polymorphism of single inheritance in the special case of a base class without virtual functions and a derived class with them. The conversion of the derived object to the base in this case requires the intervention of the compiler in order to adjust the address being assigned by the size of the vptr. Under both multiple and virtual inheritances, the need for compiler intervention is considerably more pronounced.

Multiple inheritance is neither as well behaved nor as easily modeled as single inheritance. The complexity of multiple inheritance lies in the "unnatural" relationship of the derived class with its second and subsequent base class subobjects. Consider, for example, the following multiply derived class, Vertex3d:

class Point2d {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};

class Vertex {
public:
   // ...
protected:
   Vertex *next;
};

class Vertex2d :
   public Point2d, public Vertex {
public:
   //...
protected:
   float mumble;
};
The problem of multiple inheritance primarily affects conversions between the derived and second or subsequent base class objects, either directly

extern void mumble( const Vertex& );
Vertex3d v;
...
// conversion of a Vertex3d to Vertex is ``unnatural''
mumble( v );
or through support for the virtual function mechanism. The problems with supporting virtual function invocation are discussed in Section 4.2.

The assignment of the address of a multiply derived object to a pointer of its leftmost (that is, first) base class is the same as that for single inheritance, since both point to the same beginning address. The cost is simply the assignment of that address (Figure 3.4 shows the multiple inheritance layout). The assignment of the address of a second or subsequent base class, however, requires that that address be modified by the addition (or subtraction in the case of a downcast) of the size of the intervening base class subobject(s). For example, with

Figure 3.4. Data Layout: Multiple Inheritance

Vertex3d v3d;
Vertex  *pv;
Point2d *pp;
Point3d *p3d;
the assignment

pv = &v3d;
requires a conversion of the form

// Pseudo C++ Code
pv = (Vertex*)(((char*)&v3d) + sizeof( Point3d ));
whereas the assignments

pp  = &v3d;
p3d = &v3d;
both simply require a copying of the address. With

Vertex3d *p3d;
Vertex   *pv;
the assignment

pv = p3d;
cannot simply be converted into

// Pseudo C++ Code
pv = (Vertex*)((char*)p3d) + sizeof( Point3d );
since, if p3d were set to 0, pv would end up with the value sizeof(Point3d). So, for pointers, the internal conversion requires a conditional test:

// Pseudo C++ Code
pv = p3d
   ? (Vertex*)((char*)p3d) + sizeof( Point3d )
   : 0;
Conversion of a reference need not defend itself against a possible 0 value, since the reference cannot refer to no object.

The Standard does not require a specific ordering of the Point3d and Vertex base classes of Vertex3d. The original cfront implementation always placed them in the order of declaration. A Vertex3d object under cfront, therefore, consisted of the Point3d subobject (which itself consisted of a Point2d subobject), followed by the Vertex subobject and finally by the Vertex3d part. In practice, this is still how all implementations lay out the multiple base classes (with the exception of virtual inheritance).

An optimization under some compilers, however, such as the MetaWare compiler, switch the order of multiple base classes if the second (or subsequent) base class declares a virtual function and the first does not. This shuffling of the base class order saves the generation of an additional vptr within the derived class object. There is no universal agreement among implementations about the importance of this optimization, and use of this optimization is not (at least currently) widespread.

What about access of a data member of a second or subsequent base class? Is there an additional cost? No. The member's location is fixed at compile time. Hence its access is a simple offset the same as under single inheritance regardless of whether it is a pointer, reference, or object through which the member is being accessed.

Virtual Inheritance
A semantic side effect of multiple inheritance is the need to support a form of shared subobject inheritance. The classic example of this is the original iostream library implementation:

//pre-standard iostream implementation
class ios { ... };
class istream : public ios { ... };
class ostream : public ios { ... };
class iostream :
   public istream, public ostream { ... };
Both the istream and ostream classes contain an ios subobject. In the layout of iostream, however, we need only a single ios subobject. The language level solution is the introduction of virtual inheritance:

class ios { ... };
class istream : public virtual ios { ... };
class ostream : public virtual ios { ... };
class iostream :
   public istream, public ostream { ... };
As complicated as the semantics of virtual inheritance may seem, its support within the compiler has proven even more complicated. In our iostream example, the implementational challenge is to find a reasonably efficient method of collapsing the two instances of an ios subobject maintained by the istream and ostream classes into a single instance maintained by the iostream class, while still preserving the polymorphic assignment between pointers (and references) of base and derived class objects.

The general implementation solution is as follows. A class containing one or more virtual base class subobjects, such as istream, is divided into two regions: an invariant region and a shared region. Data within the invariant region remains at a fixed offset from the start of the object regardless of subsequent derivations. So members within the invariant region can be accessed directly. The shared region represents the virtual base class subobjects. The location of data within the shared region fluctuates with each derivation. So members within the shared region need to be accessed indirectly. What has varied among implementations is the method of indirect access. The following example illustrates the three predominant strategies. Here is the data portion of a virtual Vertex3d inheritance hierarchy: [2]

[2] This hierarchy is suggested by [POKOR94], an excellent 3D Graphics textbook using C++.

class Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float _x, _y;
};

class Vertex : public virtual Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   Vertex *next;
};

class Point3d : public virtual Point2d {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float _z;
};
class Vertex3d :
   public Point3d, public Vertex {
public:
   ...
protected:
   float mumble;
};
The general layout strategy is to first lay down the invariant region of the derived class and then build up the shared region.

However, one problem remains: How is the implementation to gain access to the shared region of the class? In the original cfront implementation, a pointer to each virtual base class is inserted within each derived class object. Access of the inherited virtual base class members is achieved indirectly through the associated pointer. For example, if we have the following Point3d operator:

void
Point3d::
operator+=( const Point3d &rhs )
{
   _x += rhs._x;
   _y += rhs._y;
   _z += rhs._z;
};
under the cfront strategy, this is transformed internally into

// Pseudo C++ Code
__vbcPoint2d->_x += rhs.__vbcPoint2d->_x;
__vbcPoint2d->_y += rhs.__vbcPoint2d->_y;
_z += rhs._z;
A conversion between the derived and base class instances, such as

Vertex *pv = pv3d;
under the cfront implementation model becomes

// Pseudo C++ code
Vertex *pv = pv3d ? pv3d->__vbcPoint2d : 0;

There are two primary weaknesses with this implementation model:

(1). An object of the class carries an additional pointer for each virtual base class. Ideally, we want a constant overhead for the class object that is independent of the number of virtual base classes within its inheritance hierarchy. Think of how you might solve this.

(2). As the virtual inheritance chain lengthens, the level of indirection increases to that depth. This means that three levels of virtual derivation requires indirection through three virtual base class pointers. Ideally, we want a constant access time regardless of the depth of the virtual derivation.

MetaWare and other compilers still using cfront's original implementation model solve the second problem by promoting (by copying) all nested virtual base class pointers into the derived class object. This solves the constant access time problem, although at the expense of duplicating the nested virtual base class pointers. MetaWare provides a compile-time switch to allow the programmer to choose whether to generate the duplicate pointers. Figure 3.5(a) illustrates the pointer-to-base-class implementation model.

There are two general solutions to the first problem. Microsoft's compiler introduced the virtual base class table. Each class object with one or more virtual base classes has a pointer to the virtual base class table inserted within it. The actual virtual base class pointers, of course, are placed within the table. Although this solution has been around for many years, I am not aware of any other compiler implementation that employs it. (It may be that Microsoft's patenting of their virtual function implementation effectively prohibits its use.)

The second solution, and the one preferred by Bjarne (at least while I was working on the Foundation project with him), is to place not the address but the offset of the virtual base class within the virtual function table. (Figure 3.5(b) on page 100 shows the base class offset implementation model.) I implemented this in the Foundation research project, interweaving the virtual base class and virtual function entries. In the recent Sun compiler, the virtual function table is indexed by both positive and negative indices. The positive indices, as previously, index into the set of virtual functions; the negative indices retrieve the virtual base class offsets. Under this strategy, the Point3d operator is translated into the following general form (leaving off casts for readability and not showing the more efficient precalculation of the addresses):

// Pseudo C++ Code
(this + __vptr__Point3d[-1])->_x += (&rhs + rhs.__vptr__Point3d[-1])->_x;
(this + __vptr__Point3d[-1])->_y += (&rhs + rhs.__vptr__Point3d[-1])->_y;
_z += rhs._z;

Although the actual access of the inherited member is more expensive under this strategy, the cost of that access is localized to a use of the member. A conversion between the derived and base class instances, such as

Vertex *pv = pv3d;
under this implementation model becomes

// Pseudo C++ code
Vertex *pv = pv3d
   ? pv3d + pv3d->__vptr__Point3d[-1])
   : 0;

Each of these are implementation models; they are not required by the Standard. Each solves the problem of providing access to a shared subobject whose location is likely to fluctuate with each derivation. Because of the overhead and complexity of virtual base class support, each implementation is somewhat different and likely to continue to evolve over time.

Access of an inherited virtual base class member through a nonpolymorphic class object, such as

Point3d origin;
...
origin._x;
can be optimized by an implementation into a direct member access, much as a virtual function call through an object can be resolved at compile time. The object's type cannot change between one program access and the next, so the problem of the fluctuating virtual base class subobject in this case does not hold.

In general, the most efficient use of a virtual base class is that of an abstract virtual base class with no associated data members.抽象基才是王道!

********************************************\
|    欢迎转载, 但请保留作者姓名和原文链接, 祝您进步并共勉!     |
\********************************************/

C++对象模型(11) - 3.3 Access of a Data Member
作者: Jerry Cat
时间: 2006/11/15
链接:  http://www.cppblog.com/jerysun0818/archive/2006/11/15/15193.html

3.3 Access of a Data Member

1. Static Data Members:

Static data members are literally lifted out of their class, as we saw in Section 1.1 and treated as if each were declared as a global variable (but with visibility limited to the scope of the class).但其可视范围只在类内.

Each member's access permission and class association is maintained without incurring any space or runtime overhead either in the individual class objects or in the static data member itself.

A single instance of each class static data member is stored within the data segment of the program. Each reference to the static member is internally translated to be a direct reference of that single extern instance. For example,

// origin.chunkSize == 250;
Point3d::chunkSize == 250;

// pt->chunkSize == 250;
Point3d::chunkSize == 250;

What if the access of the static data member is through a function call or some other form of expression? For example, if we write

foobar().chunkSize == 250;

what happens to the invocation of foobar()? In the pre-Standard language, one didn't know what would happen: It was left unspecified in the ARM whether foobar() had to be evaluated. In cfront, for example, it was simply discarded. Standard C++ explicitly requires that foobar() be evaluated, although no use is made of its result. A probable translation looks as follows:

// foobar().chunkSize == 250;

// evaluate expression, discarding result
(void) foobar();
Point3d::chunkSize == 250;
Taking the address of a static data member yields an ordinary pointer of its data type, not a pointer to class member, since the static member is not contained within a class object. For example,

&Point3d::chunkSize;
yields an actual memory address of type
const int*

2. Nonstatic Data Members:

Nonstatic data members are stored directly within each class object and cannot be accessed except through an explicit or implicit class object. An implicit class object is present whenever the programmer directly accesses a nonstatic data member within a member function. For example, in the following code:

Point3d
Point3d::translate( const Point3d &pt ) {
   x += pt.x;
   y += pt.y;
   z += pt.z;
}
the seemingly direct access of x, y, and z is actually carried out through an implicit class object represented by the this pointer. Internally, the function is augmented as follows:

  // internal augmentation of member function
  Point3d
  Point3d::translate( Point3d *const this, const Point3d &pt ) {
     this->x += pt.x;
     this->y += pt.y;
     this->z += pt.z;
  }

Access of a nonstatic data member requires the addition of the beginning address of the class object with the offset location of the data member. For example, given

origin._y = 0.0;
the address of

&origin._y;
is equivalent to the addition of

&origin + ( &Point3d::_y - 1 );//注意减1
(Notice the peculiar "subtract by one" expression applied to the pointer-to-data-member offset value. Offset values yielded by the pointer-to-data-member syntax are always bumped up by one. Doing this permits the compilation system to distinguish between a pointer to data member that is addressing the first member of a class and a pointer to data member that is addressing no member(减一用以让编译系统区分两类数据成员指针: 一种是寻址第一个数据成员; 另一种是不对数据成员寻址). Pointers to data members are discussed in more detail in Section 3.6.)

编译时确定, 效率不减.The offset of each nonstatic data member is known at compile time, even if the member belongs to a base class subobject derived through a single or multiple inheritance chain. Access of a nonstatic data member, therefore, is equivalent in performance to that of a C struct member or the member of a nonderived class.

Virtual inheritance introduces an additional level of indirection in the access of its members through a base class subobject. Thus

Point3d *pt3d;
pt3d->_x = 0.0;
performs equivalently if _x is a member of a struct, class, single inheritance hierarchy, or multiple inheritance hierarchy, but it performs somewhat slower if it is a member of a virtual base class. In the next sections, I examine the effect of inheritance on member layout. Before I turn to that, however, recall the question at the beginning of this section: When, if ever, is the access of the coordinate data members, such as

origin.x = 0.0;
pt->x = 0.0; //当面临虚基类时&pt->x是不确定的, 而&origin.x则是在编译时确定的
ever significantly different when accessed through the object origin or the pointer pt? The answer is the access is significantly different when the Point3d class is a derived class containing a virtual base class within its inheritance hierarchy and the member being accessed, such as x, is an inherited member of that virtual base class. In this case, we cannot say with any certainty which class type pt addresses (and therefore we cannot know at compile time the actual offset location of the member), so the resolution of the access must be delayed until runtime through an additional indirection. This is not the case with the object origin. Its type is that of a Point3d class, and the offset location of even inherited virtual base class members are fixed at compile time. An aggressive compiler can therefore resolve the access of x through origin statically.

********************************************\
|    欢迎转载, 但请保留作者姓名和原文链接, 祝您进步并共勉!     |
\********************************************/

C++对象模型(10) - 3.2 Data Member Layout

作者: Jerry Cat
时间: 2006/11/15
链接:  http://www.cppblog.com/jerysun0818/archive/2006/11/15/15192.html

3.2 Data Member Layout

class Point3d {
public:
   // ...
private:
   float x;
   static List<Point3d*> *freeList;
   float y;
   static const int chunkSize = 250;
   float z;
};
the nonstatic data members are set down in the order of their declaration(按声明的顺序) within each class object (any intervening static data members, such as freeList and chunkSize, are ignored). In our example, then, each Point3d object consists of three float members in order: x, y, z. The static data members are stored in the program's data segment independent of individual class objects.

The Standard requires within an access section (the private, public, or protected section of a class declaration) only that the members be set down such that "later members have higher addresses within a class object" (Section 9.2 of the Standard). That is, the members are not required to be set down contiguously.(可以不连续但必须从低到高)

What might intervene between the declared members? Alignment constraints on the type of a succeeding member may require padding. This is true both of C and C++, and in this case, the member layout of the two languages is in current practice the same.(对齐)

虚表指针在哪儿? Traditionally, it has been placed after all the explicitly declared members of the class. More recently, it has been placed at the beginning of the class object. The Standard, by phrasing the layout requirement as it does, allows the compiler the freedom to insert these internally generated members anywhere, even between those explicitly declared by the programmer.

In practice, multiple access sections are concatenated together into one contiguous block in the order of declaration.编译器帮你同类项合并 No overhead is incurred by the access section specifier or the number of access levels. For example, declaring eight members in one access section or eight separate access sections in practice results in the same-sized objects.