This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Failure in sizeof() function while using Member-Function-Pointers

When using member-function-pointers I noticed that they have a size of 8Bytes each. However when I ask the compiler it says it is only 4Bytes. Having a couple of objects in you program which have member-function-pointers and are created dynamically with new will allways crash your program.

Please refer to the following source-code and documentation:


#include  <StdIO.h>
#include  <Reg164ci.h>

/*
        A simple external object
        */
class cCalculator {

        public:
                int calculate();

};

int cCalculator::calculate(){
        return 27;
}

/*
        The description of the member-function-pointer
*/
typedef int (cCalculator::*fptr)();



/*
        An object with an array of such member-function-pointers
        which is able to call these functions by an index.
*/
class cAnObject  {
public:
   cAnObject();
         ~cAnObject();

         fptr fptr_array[2];    // 2 x 8 bytes = 16 bytes (see watchwindow)

        int   member1;                  // 2 bytes
        int       member2;              // 2 bytes

                                        // --------------------------------------
                                        // total: 20bytes = 0x14bytes

};
/*
        The constructor
*/

cAnObject::cAnObject()  {
  member1 = 1;
  member1 = 2;
}

/*
        The destructor
*/
cAnObject::~cAnObject()  {
  member1 = 0;
  member1 = 0;
}

int main (void)  {

        // now we have the external object
        cCalculator calc1;
        cCalculator calc2;

        // and a couple of objects containing some function pointes
        cAnObject test1;
        cAnObject test2;
        cAnObject test3;

        fptr memberfunction = &(cCalculator::calculate);
        test1.fptr_array[0] =  memberfunction;


        // here we get the size of our objects (see watch window)
        volatile unsigned long object_addr1 = (unsigned long) &test1;
        volatile unsigned long object_addr2 = (unsigned long) &test2;
        volatile unsigned long object_sizeA = object_addr2 - object_addr1;
        volatile unsigned long object_sizeB = sizeof( test1 );
        //...

        // please notice that the static objects have a distance
        // which is different from its size ? why?
        // count the bytes and you see the sizeof() is wrong !!


        // now we simply create the dynamic object (with the wrong size), why ? compiler ?
        // which here leads to an -access violation-, due to
        // the wrong calculated size of the function pointers
        cAnObject * p_test4;
        p_test4 = new cAnObject;
        // and set the function
        p_test4->fptr_array[0] = memberfunction;

        // calc the size
        volatile unsigned long objectSize4 = sizeof(    (*p_test4)      );


        // ----
        // now the function call itself
        cCalculator * p_calc;

        // here we select our target object
        p_calc = &calc1;

        // do the static object call by an index == 0
        fptr p_fct1 = test1.fptr_array[0];
        int x = ( (p_calc)->*( p_fct1 ))( );

        // now use the other object
        p_calc = &calc2;

        // do the dynamic object call   by an index == 0
        fptr p_fct4 = p_test4->fptr_array[0];
        int y = ( (p_calc)->*( p_fct4 ))( );


        // if there is any time please notice that there is a second bug:
        //   try to remove the line "fptr p_fct4 = ..."
        //       and put it into one line like "   int y = ( (p_calc)->*( p_test4->fptr_array[0] ))( );      "
        // and your whole program will crash !

        // just print the result
        printf("%d = %d \r", x, y );

  while (1);
}

Parents
  • Possibly it comes from the difference between linker and compiler. The interesting point is that the array from above (cAnObject array[2];) has elements which have a distance of 0x14 although sizof says it has only a size of 0xc.
    So this basically doesn't matter if you have static objects. But creating them dynamically causes errors due to the wrong internal sizeof.

Reply
  • Possibly it comes from the difference between linker and compiler. The interesting point is that the array from above (cAnObject array[2];) has elements which have a distance of 0x14 although sizof says it has only a size of 0xc.
    So this basically doesn't matter if you have static objects. But creating them dynamically causes errors due to the wrong internal sizeof.

Children
  • "The interesting point is that the array from above (cAnObject array[2];) has elements which have a distance of 0x14 although sizof says it has only a size of 0xc."

    I don't know how to read this sentence.

    You said ealier that the size of a two-element array was 0x18 (24), which was twice the size of a single element (12). This should imply that the distance between the elements was 12 bytes, the same as sizeof gives.

    Where did you deduce that the distance between two elements in the array was 20 bytes? Note yet again that the debugger may be in error. If so, it may say that the distance is 20 bytes and show broken data in the second element.

  • Sorry. I try it again.

    You proposed to crate an array (cAnObject array[2];), where the sizeof said it has a size of 0x18 so a single object has a size of 0xc. (see testresults1)

    Now the strange thing:
    When I create two pointers of cAnObject which point to the first and the second element of the array, their difference is 0x14. Which is the same thing you figured out with the testresults2.

    But 0xc != 0x14. What underlines your theorem:
    The sizeof operator must always produce the same value as the distance between two elements in an array, which has to be the same as the amount a pointer is incremented to step one object forward/backward.

  • You you continue to claim "So this basically doesn't matter if you have static objects. But creating them dynamically causes errors due to the wrong internal sizeof."

    If the compiler does not use the same offset when doing array[1] or p0[1] or *(p0+1) it really doesn't matter if you have static or dynamic objects. The compiler would not be able to produce correct code for static arrays either.

    The question here is still: Have you produced a complete set of figures from the compiler, i.e. without gleaning info from the debugger windows?

  • Well I recived the variable-data from the watch-window, which includes (size_obj1 >> 0xC, size_array >> 0x18, >> p0 = 0x10fac, >> p1 = 0x10fc0 ).

    Is this ok?

  • @Hans-Bernhard Broeker:

    While reading this post I can say you are right, I claimed a couple of things which aren't backed up correctly. After hours of searching for the failure in our program I thought to have a rough understanding of what is going on, so I took the assumptions from experience what might be wrong. But I also noticed there is a missbehaviour of the compiler/linker/debugger or what else. So I proposed the code example from above. Which obviously didn't bring it to the point.

    Finally I support the post: If the distance between two objects in an array is 12 bytes (0x0c) but the distance when stepping a pointer is 20 bytes (0x14) then the compiler is most definitely broken!
    as this is actually true, what can be seen in the testresults1/2.

    Probably there is time and you can copy and paste the code from above and follow the idea for yourself. I think its worth trying it.

    Thanks.