Are virtual destructors inherited?

by
  1. Yes, they are the same. The derived class not declaring something virtual does not stop it from being virtual. There is, in fact, no way to stop any method (destructor included) from being virtual in a derived class if it was virtual in a base class. In >=C++11 you can use final to prevent it from being overridden in derived classes, but that doesn’t prevent it from being virtual.
  2. Yes, a destructor in a derived class can be omitted if it has nothing to do. And it doesn’t matter whether or not its virtual.
  3. I would omit it if possible. And I always use either the virtual keyword or override for virtual functions in derived classes for reasons of clarity. People shouldn’t have to go all the way up the inheritance hierarchy to figure out that a function is virtual. Additionally, if your class is copyable or movable without having to declare your own copy or move constructors, declaring a destructor of any kind (even if you define it as default) will force you to declare the copy and move constructors and assignment operators if you want them as the compiler will no longer put them in for you.

As a small point for item 3. It has been pointed out in comments that if a destructor is undeclared the compiler generates a default one (that is still virtual). And that default one is an inline function.

Inline functions potentially expose more of your program to changes in other parts of your program and make binary compatibility for shared libraries tricky. Also, the increased coupling can result in a lot of recompilation in the face of certain kinds of changes. For example, if you decide you really do want an implementation for your virtual destructor then every piece of code that called it will need to be recompiled. Whereas if you had declared it in the class body and then defined it empty in a .cpp file you would be fine changing it without recompiling.

My personal choice would still be to omit it when possible. In my opinion it clutters up the code, and the compiler can sometimes do slightly more efficient things with a default implementation over an empty one. But there are constraints you may be under that make that a poor choice.

More Related Contents:

  1. Why should I declare a virtual destructor for an abstract class in C++?
  2. When to use virtual destructors?
  3. Why do I have to access template base class members through the this pointer?
  4. What are the rules for calling the base class constructor?
  5. Is there any real risk to deriving from the C++ STL containers?
  6. Subclass/inherit standard containers?
  7. Conversion of pointer-to-pointer between derived and base classes?
  8. What is the point of a private pure virtual function?
  9. Trouble with inheritance of operator= in C++
  10. Copy constructor is not inherited
  11. operator= and functions that are not inherited in C++?
  12. In C++, is it possible to forward declare a class as inheriting from another class?
  13. cannot call base class protected functions?
  14. private inheritance
  15. How to call derived class method from base class pointer?
  16. Private inheritance VS composition : when to use which?
  17. accessing a protected member of a base class in another subclass
  18. Changing Function Access Mode in Derived Class
  19. Inheritance or composition: Rely on “is-a” and “has-a”?
  20. C++ inheritance and function overriding
  21. Function with same name but different signature in derived class not found
  22. C++ inheritance and member function pointers
  23. a way in c++ to hide a specific function
  24. When to use C++ private inheritance over composition?
  25. Class inherited from class without default constructor
  26. C++ Double Dispatch for Equals()
  27. Struct inheritance in C++
  28. Using C++ base class constructors?
  29. C++ Virtual function being hidden
  30. C++ inheritance and name hiding [duplicate]

Leave a Comment