Override identifier after destructor in C++11

Question

Does the override identifier after virtual destructor declaration have any special meaning?

class Base
{
public:
    virtual ~Base()
    {}

    virtual int Method() const
    {}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
    virtual ~Derived() override
    {}

    virtual int Method() override // error: marked override, but does not override - missing const
    {}
};

Using override identifier on virtual method is useful as check: compiler will report error when the Base virtual method is actualy not overriden.

Does override on virtual destructor has any meaning/function too?

About ~Derived() override it doesn't tell anything, it compiles without any trouble. My point was if it has any special meaning. Method() override is of course error, as it's missing const. (I included it as example) — EnterTheNameHere Bohemian, Jul 29 '13 at 15:53
It [does NOT compile](http://ideone.com/5crIkA) if the base is not virtual. — Nawaz, Jul 29 '13 at 16:31

score 61 · Answer 1 · answered Jul 29 '13 at 12:01

61

Yes. If the base destructor is not virtual then the override marking will cause the program to not compile:

class Base
{
public:
    ~Base()
    {}
};

class Derived : public Base
{
public:
    virtual ~Derived() override //error: '~Derived' marked 'override' but does
                                //        not override any member functions
    {}
};

answered Jul 29 '13 at 12:01

Mankarse

39,818
11
97
141

21

Is there any reason to use `virtual` and `override` together? Is there a special case for destructors? I think the convention wisdom is to *not* use both, as `override` makes `virtual` redundant for normal methods, but I'm not sure about destructors. – Mark Lakata Sep 22 '15 at 20:33
1

Personal opinion is that it's up to the coding conventions of a given organization and the individual. I use both at the moment out of force of habit. If I'm overriding a virtual function out of habit I add the virtual qualifier. That habit remains even after the introduction of the override keyword. – leeor_net May 22 '17 at 05:58
1

@MarkLakata, they still have separate meaning. You can override a parent method without your own method being virtual to your descendents if you so choose. – yano Sep 14 '18 at 17:42
12

@yano, that's not true, if something is declared virtual in a base class, it's implicitly virtual in every derived class. However, you can shadow (not override) a non-virtual base class method with a virtual one in a derived class. – Balázs Kovacsics May 02 '19 at 10:33
1

What @yano talks about is the final keyword, which ensures a method cannot be overriden in derived classes while it was originally a virtual method. – Pato Sandaña Jun 27 '19 at 18:30
@BalázsKovacsics and Pato Thanks for the clarifications/corrections. – yano Dec 08 '22 at 17:45

score 51 · Accepted Answer · edited Jul 29 '13 at 13:01

51

It is not override that has special meaning, but the destructor itself:

10.3 Virtual Functions

6/Even though destructors are not inherited, a destructor in a derived class overrides a base class destructor declared virtual; see 12.4 and 12.5.

If you take this in conjunction with the previous clause:

5/If a virtual function is marked with the virt-specifier override and does not override a member function of a base class, the program is ill-formed. [ Example:
struct B { 
    virtual void f(int); 
}; 

struct D : B
{ 
    void f(long) override; // error: wrong signature overriding B::f
    void f(int) override; // OK 
}; 
—end example ]

you can see that if a destructor is marked override but the base class does not have a virtual destructor, the program is ill-formed.

edited Jul 29 '13 at 13:01

David G

94,763
41
167
253

answered Jul 29 '13 at 12:07

John Dibling

99,718
31
186
324

1

Unfortunately VS2010 gives "error C3665: 'MyClass::~MyClass' : override specifier 'override' not allowed on a destructor". Perhaps the behaviour is improved in more modern compilers... – Tim MB Oct 09 '13 at 10:45
24

Is it recommended practice to mark the destructor with override in derived classes assuming that it is virtual in the base class? Sutter and Meyers offer clear guidelines indicating that you should use override whenever overriding virtual functions but they do not specifically discuss the destructor. I can't see how it would hurt but do programmers actually do this? – Skeve Sep 09 '15 at 08:47
FYI re: @TimMB's comment - VS 2017 does allow override on a virtual dtor in a derived class. – jschroedl Mar 17 '17 at 14:17
3

Am I missing something here? Typically the destructor in a derived class does not "override" the virtual one in the base class like a virtual method would. It is complementary - both the destructors are called as the object gets torn down. Marking a destructor with override seems totally incorrect to me. I reckon a program should be deemed ill formed if you derive from a base class using a non-virtual destructor. – David McCabe Apr 19 '23 at 01:47
@DavidMcCabe `I reckon a program should be deemed ill formed if you derive from a base class using a non-virtual destructor.` You're assuming that there shall be polymorphic usage of the derived class via a base class pointer. It's perfectly legit to have a non-virtual base clas destructor in case one's never going to use something like `Base* ptrBase = derivedPtr` for manipulating the `Derived` instance. – Zoso May 08 '23 at 08:44
...except it wasn't legit in VS2010 and the standard absolutely doesn't explicitly state that it is legit. I don't understand why you would ever want to declare inheritance without legally being able to utilise it using a misleading specifier. I hope this never becomes canon. *EDIT* -from [here](https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/issues/721#issuecomment-246627077) looks like it is now considered bad practice – David McCabe May 11 '23 at 13:07

Override identifier after destructor in C++11

2 Answers2

10.3 Virtual Functions

Linked