Page History

The C++ Standard, [expr.delete], paragraph 3 [ISO/IEC 14882-2014], states the following:

In the first alternative (delete object), if the static type of the object to be deleted is different from its dynamic type, the static type shall be a base class of the dynamic type of the object to be deleted and the static type shall have a virtual destructor or the behavior is undefined. In the second alternative (delete array) if the dynamic type of the object to be deleted differs from its static type, the behavior is undefined.

Do not delete an object of derived class type through a pointer to its base class type Deleting a derived class object using a pointer to a base class that has a non-virtual destructor results in undefined behavior. To correct this situation destructor. Instead, the base class should be defined with a virtual destructor. Deleting an object through a pointer to a virtual destructortype without a virtual destructor results in undefined behavior.

...

Noncompliant Code Example

In this non-compliant noncompliant example, b is a pointer to the base class Base is used to refer to a Derived object. When polymorphic pointer type whose static type is Base * and whose dynamic type is Derived *. When b is deleted, it results in undefined behavior results. Typically, the destructor for Base is invoked rather than the destructor for Derived. As a result, the object b refers to is not properly destroyed because Base does not have a virtual destructor. The C++ Standard, [class.dtor], paragraph 4 [ISO/IEC 14882-2014], states the following:

If a class has no user-declared destructor, a destructor is implicitly declared as defaulted. An implicitly declared destructor is an inline public member of its class.

The implicitly declared destructor is not declared as virtual even in the presence of other virtual functions.

classstruct Base {
public:
   Base
  virtual void f();
};
 
struct Derived : Base {};
 
void f() {
  Base *b = new // Build Base object
   }
   ~Base() {
      // Destroy Base object
  Derived();
  // ...
  delete b;
}

Noncompliant Code Example

In this noncompliant example, the explicit pointer operations have been replaced with a smart pointer object, demonstrating that smart pointers suffer from the same problem as other pointers. Because the default deleter for std::unique_ptr calls delete on the internal pointer value, the resulting behavior is identical to the previous noncompliant example.

#include <memory>
 
struct Base {
  virtual void f();
};
 
struct Derived : Base {};
 
void f() {
  std::unique_ptr<Base> b = std::make_unique<Derived>();
}

Compliant Solution

In this compliant solution, the destructor for Base has an explicitly declared virtual destructor, ensuring that the polymorphic delete operation results in well-defined behavior.

struct Base {
  virtual ~Base() = default;
  virtual void f();
};

struct Derived : Base {};

void f }
};

class Derived : public Base {
public:
   Derived() {
  Base *b = new Derived();
  // ...
 Build Derived object
   }
   ~Derived() {
      // Destroy Derived object
   }
};

void function(void) {
   Base *b = new Derived();
   // ...
   delete b;
}

Compliant Solution

delete b;
}

Exceptions

OOP52-CPP:EX0: Deleting a polymorphic object without a virtual destructor is permitted if the object is referenced by a pointer to its class, rather than via a pointer to a class it inherits from.

class Base {
public:
  // ...
  virtual void AddRef() = 0;
  virtual void Destroy() = 0;
};

class Derived final : public Base {
public:
  // ...
  virtual void AddRef() { /* ... */ }
  virtual void Destroy() { delete this; }
private:
  ~Derived() {}
};

Note that if Derived were not marked as final, then delete this could actually reference a subclass of Derived, violating this rule.

OOP52-CPP:EX1: Deleting a polymorphic object without a virtual destructor is permitted if its base class has a destroying operator delete that will figure out the correct derived class's destructor to call by other meansTo correct this example, the destructor for Base should be declared virtual. This ensures that the object b refers to is correctly evaluated at runtime and that deleting b will call the destructor for class Derived.

#include <new>

class Base {
public  const int whichDerived;

protected:
   Base(Base(int whichDerived) : whichDerived(whichDerived) {}

public:
  Base() : Base(0) {}
  //void Buildoperator delete(Base object
   }
   virtual ~Base() {
      // Destroy Base object
    *, std::destroying_delete_t);
};

struct Derived1 final : Base {
  Derived1() : Base(1) {}
};

struct Derived2 final : Base {
  Derived2() : Base(2) {}
};

class Derived : public Base {
public:void Base::operator delete(Base *b, std::destroying_delete_t) {
  switch Derived(b->whichDerived) {
  case 0:
     // Build Derived objectb->~Base();
    break;
  case }1:
    ~Derivedstatic_cast<Derived1 *>(b)->~Derived1() {
  ;
    break;
  case 2:
    // Destroy Derived objectstatic_cast<Derived2 *>(b)->~Derived2();
  }
   }::operator delete(b);
};

void functionf(void) {
   Base *b = new DerivedDerived1();
   // ...
   delete b;
}

...

Risk Assessment

Calling the wrong destructor for Attempting to destruct a polymorphic object may lead to that does not have a virtual destructor declared results in undefined behavior. In practice, potential consequences include abnormal program termination and resource mismanagementmemory leaks. 

Automated Detection

Automated Detection

...

...

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for other vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

Related Guidelines

Bibliography

...

Image Added Image Added Image Added

Bibliography

\*\[[Stroustrup 06|AA. Bibliography#Stroustrup 06]\] Why are destructors not virtual by default?

OOP33-CPP. Do not slice polymorphic objects      13. Object Oriented Programming (OOP)      OOP35-CPP. Do not return references to private data