Tag: C++

We’ve talked a lot about how construction and destruction work. Now, finally, it’s time to see how they go wrong. Firstly, let’s say that an object is being constructed and an exception is thrown. In this situation the classes destructor is not called. This, in general, should not be a problem. The only exception throwing code you should have in a constructor is code that manages some resource. And, you should manage at most one resource per class. So if an exception is thrown in your constructor, it means that the resource you are managing has not been setup and so the destructor does not need to be called.

So if we have a class like this:

class Base
{
public:
	Base()
	{
		std::cout << "Base Constructor" << std::endl;
		throw std::exception();
	}

	virtual ~Base()
	{
		std::cout << "Base Destructor" << std::endl;
	}
};

and we run the following main function,

int main()
{
    try
    {
        Base baseObject;
    }
    catch(std::exception& e)
    {
        std::cout << "Exception caught" << std::endl;
    }
    return 0;
}

we will see:

Base Constructor
Exception caught

As you see, no calls to the destructor. Now suppose, with the same main function, we throw an exception from a derived class like so,

class Base
{
public:
	Base()
	{
		std::cout << "Base Constructor" << std::endl;
	}

	virtual ~Base()
	{
		std::cout << "Base Destructor" << std::endl;
	}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
	Derived() : Base()
	{
		std::cout << "Derived Constructor" << std::endl;
		throw std::exception();
	}

	Derived(int i)
	{
		std::cout << "Derived with parameter Constructor" << std::endl;
	}

	virtual ~Derived()
	{
		std::cout << "Derived Destructor" << std::endl;
	}
};

Then we will see:

Base Constructor
Derived Constructor
Base Destructor
Exception caught

The Derived destructor is not called, but the Base Destructor is. This is because by the time the exception is thrown in the Derived class, we have completely the construction of the Base class, so that will need to be destroyed as normal.

Local objects that are constructed within the constructor will be destroyed as normal when an exception is thrown. So, for example code like this:

class Simple
{
public:
	Simple()
	{
		std::cout << "Simple Constructor" << std::endl;
	}

	virtual ~Simple()
	{
		std::cout << "Simple Destructor" << std::endl;
	}
};

class Basic
{
public:
	Basic()
	{
		std::cout << "Basic Constructor" << std::endl;
                Simple simpleObject;
		throw std::exception();
	}

	virtual ~Basic()
	{
		std::cout << "Basic Destructor" << std::endl;
	}
};

when executed via,

int main()
{
	try
	{
		Basic basicObject;
	}
	catch(std::exception& e)
	{
		std::cout << "Exception caught" << std::endl;
	}
	return 0;
}

will produce:

Basic Constructor
Simple Constructor
Simple Destructor
Exception caught

So, as we have seen, you can throw exceptions from the constructor. You cannot however throw an exception from a destructor. Try building the following code,

class Simple
{
public:
	Simple()
	{
		std::cout << "Simple Constructor" << std::endl;
	}

	virtual ~Simple()
	{
		std::cout << "Simple Destructor" << std::endl;
                throw std::exception();
	}
};

You should get a warn telling you that destructors are “noexcept” in C++. If you run this code as before, you will get:

Simple Constructor
Simple Destructor
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::exception'
  what():  std::exception
Aborted (core dumped)

C++ will always terminate when an exception like this is thrown in a destructor. The reason is simple. Suppose we throw an exception and then start unwinding the stack. If, when we destroy an object on the stack it’s destructor threw another exception, there is no way to catch both exceptions. We cannot catch one exception and abandon the other, so the program gives up and terminates whenever an exception is thrown in a destructor.

In our previous post we discussed constructors and destructors for local objects. Now, suppose we have the same hierarchy of classes, Base, Derived and DerivedAgain, and we constructed a DerivedAgain object the heap, like so:

int main()
{
    DerivedAgain* derivedAgainObject = new DerivedAgainObject();
    return 0;
}

When we run this we will see the following,

Base Constructor
Derived Constructor
DerivedAgain Constructor

The constructors were called in the same order as before. However, because our DerivedAgain object was created on the heap the destructor was never called. If we want to destroy our object we must explicitly use delete.

int main()
{
    DerivedAgain* derivedAgainObject = new DerivedAgainObject();
    delete derivedAgainObject;
    return 0;
}

The above will output the following to the command line,

Base Constructor
Derived Constructor 
DerivedAgain Constructor
DerivedAgain Destructor
Derived Destructor
Base Destructor

Let’s consider what happens when we have a pointer of type Derived that points to an object of typed DerivedAgain. Say we run:

Derived* derivedPointer = new DerivedAgain();
delete derivedPointer;
return 0;

When we run this code we will see:

Base Constructor
Derived Constructor
DerivedAgain Constructor
Derived Destructor
Base Destructor

The constructors are the same, because we are creating a DerivedAgain object as before. However, now we are calling delete on a pointer of type Derived. So only the Derived and Base class destructors are called.

We can avoid this problem by making our destructors virtual.

class Base
{
public:
        Base()
        {
                std::cout << "Base Constructor" << std::endl;
        }

        virtual ~Base()
        {
                std::cout << "Base Destructor" << std::endl;
        }
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
        Derived() : Base()
        {
                std::cout << "Derived Constructor" << std::endl;
        }

        virtual ~Derived()
        {
                std::cout << "Derived Destructor" << std::endl;
        }
};

class DerivedAgain : public Derived
{
public:
        DerivedAgain() : Derived()
        {
                std::cout << "DerivedAgain Constructor" << std::endl;
        }

        ~DerivedAgain()
        {
                std::cout << "DerivedAgain Destructor" << std::endl;
        }
};

Now when we run,

int main()
{
        Derived* derivedPointer = new DerivedAgain();
        delete derivedPointer;
        return 0;
}

we will see:

Base Constructor
Derived Constructor
DerivedAgain Constructor
DerivedAgain Destructor
Derived Destructor
Base Destructor

Even though we have a pointer of type Derived, because the destructor is virtual, when we call delete, the DerivedAgain destructor gets called. What’s interesting here, is that we always call all the destructors upwards through the type hierarchy, the use of virtual ensures that we start at the right level. For this reason, we should usually make our destructors virtual.

We can even make our destructors pure virtual. However, we will have to give this pure virtual destructor a body. It is a common misconception that a pure virtual function necessarily can’t have a body, this is not true. However pure virtual destructors are probably one of the only examples of when you would want to do it. The only reason we would want to make a destructor pure virtual is that we want to make a class abstract and the destructor is the only method. In my opinion this is a very unlikely to happen, so it’s not something we should really worry about.

In the next post we will have a look at what happens when things go wrong in construction and destruction.