Whats the cost of calling a virtual function in a non

I have a pure abstract base and two derived classes:

struct B { virtual void foo() = 0; };
struct D1 : B { void foo() override { cout << "D1::foo()" << endl; } };
struct D2 : B { void foo() override { cout << "D1::foo()" << endl; } };

Does calling foo in Point A cost the same as a call to a non-virtual member function? Or is it more expensive than if D1 and D2 wouldn't have derived from B?

int main() {
 D1 d1; D2 d2; 
 std::vector<B*> v = { &d1, &d2 };

 d1.foo(); d2.foo(); // Point A (polymorphism not necessary)
 for(auto&& i : v) i->foo(); // Polymorphism necessary.

 return 0;
}

Answer: the answer of Andy Prowl is kind of the right answer, I just wanted to add the assembly output of gcc (tested in godbolt: gcc-4.7 -O2 -march=native -std=c++11). The cost of the direct function calls is:

mov rdi, rsp
call    D1::foo()
mov rdi, rbp
call    D2::foo()

And for the polymorphic calls:

mov rdi, QWORD PTR [rbx]
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rdi]
call    [QWORD PTR [rax]]
mov rdi, QWORD PTR [rbx+8]
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rdi]
call    [QWORD PTR [rax]]

However, if the objects don't derive from B and you just perform the direct call, gcc will inline the function calls:

mov esi, OFFSET FLAT:.LC0
mov edi, OFFSET FLAT:std::cout
call    std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >& std::operator<< <std::char_traits<char> >(std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&, char const*)

This could enable further optimizations if D1 and D2 don't derive from B so I guess that no, they are not equivalent (at least for this version of gcc with these optimizations, -O3 produced a similar output without inlining). Is there something preventing the compiler from inlining in the case that D1 and D2 do derive from B ?

"Fix": use delegates (aka reimplement virtual functions yourself):

struct DG { // Delegate
 std::function<void(void)> foo;
 template<class C> DG(C&& c) { foo = [&](void){c.foo();}; }
};

and then create a vector of delegates:

std::vector<DG> v = { d1, d2 };

this allows inlining if you access the methods in a non-polymorphic way. However, I guess accessing the vector will be slower (or at least as fast because std::function uses virtual functions for type erasure) than just using virtual functions (can't test with godbolt yet).

---

Does calling foo in Point A cost the same as a call to a non-virtual member function?

Yes.

Or is it more expensive than if D1 and D2 wouldn't have derived from B?

No.

The compiler will resolve these function calls statically, because they are not performed through a pointer or through a reference. Since the type of the objects on which the function is called is known at compile-time, the compiler knows which implementation of foo() will have to be invoked.

---

Simplest solution is looking at the compilers innards. In Clang we find canDevirtualizeMemberFunctionCall in lib/CodeGen/CGClass.cpp:

/// canDevirtualizeMemberFunctionCall - Checks whether the given virtual member
/// function call on the given expr can be devirtualized.
static bool canDevirtualizeMemberFunctionCall(const Expr *Base, 
                                              const CXXMethodDecl *MD) {
  // If the most derived class is marked final, we know that no subclass can
  // override this member function and so we can devirtualize it. For example:
  //
  // struct A { virtual void f(); }
  // struct B final : A { };
  //
  // void f(B *b) {
  //   b->f();
  // }
  //
  const CXXRecordDecl *MostDerivedClassDecl = getMostDerivedClassDecl(Base);
  if (MostDerivedClassDecl->hasAttr<FinalAttr>())
    return true;

  // If the member function is marked 'final', we know that it can't be
  // overridden and can therefore devirtualize it.
  if (MD->hasAttr<FinalAttr>())
    return true;

  // Similarly, if the class itself is marked 'final' it can't be overridden
  // and we can therefore devirtualize the member function call.
  if (MD->getParent()->hasAttr<FinalAttr>())
    return true;

  Base = skipNoOpCastsAndParens(Base);
  if (const DeclRefExpr *DRE = dyn_cast<DeclRefExpr>(Base)) {
    if (const VarDecl *VD = dyn_cast<VarDecl>(DRE->getDecl())) {
      // This is a record decl. We know the type and can devirtualize it.
      return VD->getType()->isRecordType();
    }

    return false;
  }

  // We can always devirtualize calls on temporary object expressions.
  if (isa<CXXConstructExpr>(Base))
    return true;

  // And calls on bound temporaries.
  if (isa<CXXBindTemporaryExpr>(Base))
    return true;

  // Check if this is a call expr that returns a record type.
  if (const CallExpr *CE = dyn_cast<CallExpr>(Base))
    return CE->getCallReturnType()->isRecordType();

  // We can't devirtualize the call.
  return false;
}

I believe the code (and accompanying comments) are self-explanatory :)

链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/54268.html

上一篇: 为什么我应该在python中使用classmethod？

下一篇: 调用一个非虚函数的成本是多少？