FW: Help! pure virtual function called : Aborted

[Subodh Shakya]

Sorry, I seem to have sent this mail to wrong address so it bounced back.

> ----------
> From:         Subodh Shakya
> Sent:         Friday, August 31, 2001 11:06 AM
> To:   'Mike James'
> Subject:      RE: Help! pure virtual function called : Aborted
> Importance:   High
> 
> IS IT POSSIBLE THAT an EMPTY IMPLEMENTATION  is removed by gcc?
> Hi friends
> 
> Thanks for your effort to put my misery to end. I have been trying out
> with all these things myself. However I havent been able to find a pure
> virtual method that has not been implemented. 
> 
> Following is the code where the debugger throws up
> error ( at the commented pThis->Initial() method
> 
> void*  ACS_Thread::Thread_Function(void *lParam)
> {
>         ACS_Thread *pThis = reinterpret_cast<ACS_Thread*>(lParam);
>         try
>         {
>                 //pThis->Initial();
>                 pThis->Run();
>                 pThis->Final();
>                 pThis->m_StopWaitEvent.Set();
>         }catch(...)
>         {
>                 ACS_Exception e;
>                 DebugTrace(e.getErrorCode(),e.getErrorMessage().c_str());
>                 throw(e);
>         }
>         ACS_ThreadManager::GetInstance()->UnRegisterThread(pThis);
>         pthread_exit(0);
>         return 0;
> }
> 
> Ther Initial method for the derived class is as follows
> // Create's the interpreter and the new commands
> void ACS_TclInterp::Initial()
> {
>         m_pTclInterp = Tcl_CreateInterp();
>         RegisterTclCommands(m_pTclInterp);
>         ACS_TaskPerformer::Initial();
> }
> 
> And the one for the ACS_TaskPerformer is as follows
> 
> void ACS_TaskPerformer::Initial()
> {
> #ifdef WIN32
> //      HRESULT hr = CoInitializeEx(NULL, COINIT_MULTITHREADED);
> //      if (!SUCCEEDED(hr))
> //      {
> //              DebugTrace(eDebugTraceError,"Error intialising COM
> apratment %d",hr);
> //      }
> #endif
> }
> 
> IN CASE WIN32 IS NOT DEFINED, THE Initial() method contains an empty body.
> Is it possible that gcc is causing an optimization by removing this mehtod
> of the derived class and actually making the vtable entries to point to
> the constructor of the base class (which is pure virtual) during the
> reinterpret_cast?
> 
> I suspect this happens at the following line
> 
>         ACS_Thread *pThis = reinterpret_cast<ACS_Thread*>(lParam);
> 
> 
> The definition for ACS_Thread.h is as follows
> class ACS_COMMON_API ACS_Thread
> {
> public:
>         // constructor. this creates the thread in
>         // suspended mode. so the Start or Resume function
>         // must be called after the thread has been created.
>         // That will activate the thread.
>         ACS_Thread(const String& strThreadName="???");
> 
>         // this virutal function can be overridden to perform
>         // the initialization stuffs
>         virtual void Initial(void) { }
> 
>         // this virutal function can be overridden to perform
>         // the cleanup stuffs
>         virtual void Final(void) { }
> 
>         // This pure virual function must be overridden to
>         // perform the thread operation
>         virtual void Run(void) = 0;
> 
>         // Starts the thread thats created in suspened mode
>         void Start(void);
> 
>         //shuts down the runnign thread
>         virtual void ShutdownThread(void);
> 
>         // Resumes the suspended thread
>         void Resume(void);
> 
>         // Suspends the running thread
>         void Suspend(void);
> 
>         // destructor
>         virtual ~ACS_Thread(void);
> //..... etc 
> }
> 
> Regards
> Subodh Shakya
> 
> 
> ----------
> From:         Mike James[SMTP:mgwjames@ucalgary.ca]
> Sent:         Thursday, August 30, 2001 8:46 PM
> To:   Subodh Shakya
> Subject:      Re: Help! pure virtual function called : Aborted
> 
> 
> Most likely you are inheriting a base class that has been declated to be
> pure virtual in one or more of its methods and you are not defining that
> method.
> 
> Take a look at the class definitions and look for something that has been
> equated to 0.  (ie. int myMethod() = 0).
> That is how a class becomes pure virtual.  If you find something that
> looks
> like the declaration about you need to re-define it in your derived
> classes.
> The easiest thing to do in the derived class definition, if you are not
> using that method is the following (using the above example) is "int
> myMethod() {}".
> 
> Hope that helps.  Without the actual code it is difficult to give advice.
> 
> Cheers..and good luck
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Subodh Shakya" <SubodhS@PLANETASIA.COM>
> To: <help-gplusplus@gnu.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:15 PM
> Subject: Help! pure virtual function called : Aborted
> 
> 
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > My program runs well in Microsoft VC++ but on gcc3.0 / RedHat 7.1, the
> > program says pure virtual call and aborts execution. Can somebody help
> me
> > please?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Subodh Shakya
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Help-gplusplus mailing list
> > Help-gplusplus@gnu.org
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
> >
> 
>