Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 642547
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T21:11:02+00:00 2026-05-13T21:11:02+00:00

I was wondering if there is a possible optimization where the compiler does not

  • 0

I was wondering if there is a possible optimization where the compiler does not need to assign a vptr to an instantiated object even though the object’s type is a class with virtual methods.

For example consider:

#include <iostream>
struct FooBase
{
  virtual void bar()=0;
};

struct FooDerived : public FooBase
{
  virtual void bar() { std::cout << "FooDerived::bar()\n"; }
};

int main()
{
   FooBase* pFoo = new FooDerived();
   pFoo->bar();

  return 0;
}

In this example the compiler surely knows what will be the type of pFoo at compile time, so it does not need to use a vptr for pFoo, right?
Are there more interesting cases where the compiler can avoid using a vptr?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T21:11:02+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 9:11 pm

    Building on Andrew Stein’s answer, because I think you also want to know when the so-called “runtime overhead of virtual functions” can be avoided. (The overhead is there, but it’s tiny, and rarely worth worrying about.)

    It’s really hard to avoid the space of the vtable pointer, but the pointer itself can be ignored, including in your example. Because pFoo‘s initialization is in that scope, the compiler knows that pFoo->bar must mean FooDerived::bar, and doesn’t need to check the vtable. There are also several caching techniques to avoid multiple vtable lookups, ranging from the simple to the complex.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.