+- MISRA Discussion Forums (https://forum.misra.org.uk)
+-- Forum: MISRA C++ (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Forum: MISRA C++:2023 guidelines (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=188)
+---- Forum: 4.15 Special member functions (https://forum.misra.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=201)
+---- Thread: Rule 15.1.2 (/showthread.php?tid=1764)
Rule 15.1.2 - Merge - 19-02-2026
Hi,
We are having a discussion internally about how to interpret rule 15.1.2. In particular, the rule exception says that a class is considered empty "when it has [...], no virtual member functions, [...]".
The question is whether a virtual (defaulted) destructor is considered a virtual member function in this context. For example, whether the following class is considered empty or not for the sake of this rule:
Code:
struct Base () {
virtual ~Base() = default;
};My personal interpretation is that this class is not considered empty (it will contain the v-table), so it does not qualify as an exception w.r.t. rule 15.2 when used as a base class. Can you confirm that this interpretation is correct?
Thank you very much and best regards,
Daniel "Merge" Merget
RE: Rule 15.1.2 - misra cpp - 20-02-2026
Yes, we agree with your conclusion: Base is not empty, so would have to be explicitly initialised in any derived classes.
We know in this case that's rather redundant, but a small price for a simpler rule.