In a class with no virtual methods or superclass, is it safe to assume (address of first member vari

Posted by Jeremy Friesner on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Jeremy Friesner
Published on 2010-04-12T19:05:24Z Indexed on 2010/04/12 19:13 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 256

Filed under:
|
|
|

Hi all,

I made a private API that assumes that the address of the first member-object in the class will be the same as the class's this-pointer... that way the member-object can trivially derive a pointer to the object that it is a member of, without having to store a pointer explicitly.

Given that I am willing to make sure that the container class won't inherit from any superclass, won't have any virtual methods, and that the member-object that does this trick will be the first member object declared, will that assumption hold valid for any C++ compiler, or do I need to use the offsetof() operator (or similar) to guarantee correctness?

To put it another way, the code below does what I expect under g++, but will it work everywhere?

class MyContainer
{
public:
   MyContainer() {}
   ~MyContainer() {}  // non-virtual dtor

private:
   class MyContained
   {
   public:
      MyContained() {}
      ~MyContained() {}

      // Given that the only place Contained objects are declared is m_contained
      // (below), will this work as expected on any C++ compiler?
      MyContainer * GetPointerToMyContainer()
      {
         return reinterpret_cast<MyContainer *>(this);
      }
   };

   MyContained m_contained;  // MUST BE FIRST MEMBER ITEM DECLARED IN MyContainer
   int m_foo;                // other member items may be declared after m_contained
   float m_bar;
};

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about c++

Related posts about pointer