Question

I got this question when I received a code review comment saying virtual functions need not be inline.

I thought inline virtual functions could come in handy in scenarios where functions are called on objects directly. But the counter-argument came to my mind is — why would one want to define virtual and then use objects to call methods?

Is it best not to use inline virtual functions, since they’re almost never expanded anyway?

Code snippet I used for analysis:

class Temp { public:      virtual ~Temp()     {     }     virtual void myVirtualFunction() const     {         cout<<'Temp::myVirtualFunction'<<endl;     }  };  class TempDerived : public Temp { public:      void myVirtualFunction() const     {         cout<<'TempDerived::myVirtualFunction'<<endl;     }  };  int main(void)  {     TempDerived aDerivedObj;     //Compiler thinks it's safe to expand the virtual functions     aDerivedObj.myVirtualFunction();      //type of object Temp points to is always known;     //does compiler still expand virtual functions?     //I doubt compiler would be this much intelligent!     Temp* pTemp = &aDerivedObj;     pTemp->myVirtualFunction();      return 0; } 

Answer 1

Virtual functions can be inlined sometimes. An excerpt from the excellent C++ faq:

‘The only time an inline virtual call can be inlined is when the compiler knows the ‘exact class’ of the object which is the target of the virtual function call. This can happen only when the compiler has an actual object rather than a pointer or reference to an object. I.e., either with a local object, a global/static object, or a fully contained object inside a composite.’