This question already has an answer here:
class Base1
{
private:
int testInput;
public:
Base1();
virtual int GetRow(void) = 0;
};
Base1::Base1()
{
testInput = 0;
}
class table : public Base1
{
private:
int row;
public:
table();
virtual int GetRow(void);
};
table::table()
{
//Contructor
row = 5;
}
int table::GetRow()
{
return row;
}
int main ()
{
Base1* pBase = new table[3];
pBase[0].GetRow();
pBase[1].GetRow(); //when i get to this line, the compiler keep saying access
// violation.
pBase[2].GetRow();
return 0;
}
I'm trying to create an array of 3 table class. The requirement is I have to use Base object to do that.
Base1 * pBase = new table[3];
look fine to me. But when I tried to access each table, the compiler said it's access violation. I don't know what wrong with this code. I'm using Visual Studio 2010 though.
Agnew's response was spot on. Let me explain a little more. By augmenting your code, I print out the size of a
Base1
and atable
object as well as the addresses of the threetable
objects as they are created by thenew
operator:As you can see those objects are spaced 12 bytes apart from each other in memory.
Now, let's print out the addresses that pBase[0], pBase[1] and pBase[2] give:
Now look at what happens: the pointers we get back are spaced 8 bytes apart. This is because the pointer arithmetic is done on an pointer whose type is
Base1
and sinceBase1
is 8 bytes longs what the compiler does is to translatepBase[n]
intopBase + (n * sizeof(Base1))
.Now you should be able to understand exactly why the first
GetRow()
works and why you crash on the second.In C++, polymorphism and arrays don't mix.
Since in general the size of the derived class is different to the size of the base class, polymorphism and pointer arithmetic don't play together nicely. Since array access involves pointer arithmetic, expressions such as
pBase[1]
don't work as expected.One possibility is to have an array of pointers to your objects, perhaps even smart pointers to simplify memory management. But don't forget to define a virtual destructor in
Base1
.You need to create (with
new
) all those array elements, do it like this:You're getting the error because the array is statically typed to
Base1
. That means that this line:adds the size of
Base1
in bytes topBase
and interprets this as the beginning of anotherBase1
object, but this actually points someplace into the middle of the firsttable
instance.If you need an array of polymorphic instances, you must store them in the array (or preferably in a
std::vector
) via pointers (or preferably some form of smart pointers).