1*b5893f02SDimitry AndricMissing Key Function 2*b5893f02SDimitry Andric==================== 3*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 4*b5893f02SDimitry AndricIf your build failed with a linker error something like this:: 5*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 6*b5893f02SDimitry Andric foo.cc:28: error: undefined reference to 'vtable for C' 7*b5893f02SDimitry Andric the vtable symbol may be undefined because the class is missing its key function (see https://lld.llvm.org/missingkeyfunction) 8*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 9*b5893f02SDimitry Andricit's likely that your class C has a key function (defined by the ABI as the first 10*b5893f02SDimitry Andricnon-pure, non-inline, virtual method), but you haven't actually defined it. 11*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 12*b5893f02SDimitry AndricWhen a class has a key function, the compiler emits the vtable (and some other 13*b5893f02SDimitry Andricthings as well) only in the translation unit that defines that key function. Thus, 14*b5893f02SDimitry Andricif you're missing the key function, you'll also be missing the vtable. If no other 15*b5893f02SDimitry Andricfunction calls your missing method, you won't see any undefined reference errors 16*b5893f02SDimitry Andricfor it, but you will see undefined references to the vtable symbol. 17*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 18*b5893f02SDimitry AndricWhen a class has no non-pure, non-inline, virtual methods, there is no key 19*b5893f02SDimitry Andricmethod, and the compiler is forced to emit the vtable in every translation unit 20*b5893f02SDimitry Andricthat references the class. In this case, it is emitted in a COMDAT section, 21*b5893f02SDimitry Andricwhich allows the linker to eliminate all duplicate copies. This is still 22*b5893f02SDimitry Andricwasteful in terms of object file size and link time, so it's always advisable to 23*b5893f02SDimitry Andricensure there is at least one eligible method that can serve as the key function. 24*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 25*b5893f02SDimitry AndricHere are the most common mistakes that lead to this error: 26*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 27*b5893f02SDimitry AndricFailing to define a virtual destructor 28*b5893f02SDimitry Andric-------------------------------------- 29*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 30*b5893f02SDimitry AndricSay you have a base class declared in a header file:: 31*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 32*b5893f02SDimitry Andric class B { 33*b5893f02SDimitry Andric public: 34*b5893f02SDimitry Andric B(); 35*b5893f02SDimitry Andric virtual ~B(); 36*b5893f02SDimitry Andric ... 37*b5893f02SDimitry Andric }; 38*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 39*b5893f02SDimitry AndricHere, ``~B`` is the first non-pure, non-inline, virtual method, so it is the key 40*b5893f02SDimitry Andricmethod. If you forget to define ``B::~B`` in your source file, the compiler will 41*b5893f02SDimitry Andricnot emit the vtable for ``B``, and you'll get an undefined reference to "vtable 42*b5893f02SDimitry Andricfor B". 43*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 44*b5893f02SDimitry AndricThis is just an example of the more general mistake of forgetting to define the 45*b5893f02SDimitry Andrickey function, but it's quite common because virtual destructors are likely to be 46*b5893f02SDimitry Andricthe first eligible key function and it's easy to forget to implement them. It's 47*b5893f02SDimitry Andricalso more likely that you won't have any direct references to the destructor, so 48*b5893f02SDimitry Andricyou won't see any undefined reference errors that point directly to the problem. 49*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 50*b5893f02SDimitry AndricThe solution in this case is to implement the missing method. 51*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 52*b5893f02SDimitry AndricForgetting to declare a virtual method in an abstract class as pure 53*b5893f02SDimitry Andric------------------------------------------------------------------- 54*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 55*b5893f02SDimitry AndricSay you have an abstract base class declared in a header file:: 56*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 57*b5893f02SDimitry Andric class A { 58*b5893f02SDimitry Andric public: 59*b5893f02SDimitry Andric A(); 60*b5893f02SDimitry Andric virtual ~A() {} 61*b5893f02SDimitry Andric virtual int foo() = 0; 62*b5893f02SDimitry Andric ... 63*b5893f02SDimitry Andric virtual int bar(); 64*b5893f02SDimitry Andric ... 65*b5893f02SDimitry Andric }; 66*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 67*b5893f02SDimitry AndricThis base class is intended to be abstract, but you forgot to mark one of the 68*b5893f02SDimitry Andricmethods pure. Here, ``A::bar``, being non-pure, is nominated as the key function, 69*b5893f02SDimitry Andricand as a result, the vtable for ``A`` is not emitted, because the compiler is 70*b5893f02SDimitry Andricwaiting for a translation unit that defines ``A::bar``. 71*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 72*b5893f02SDimitry AndricThe solution in this case is to add the missing ``= 0`` to the declaration of 73*b5893f02SDimitry Andric``A::bar``. 74*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 75*b5893f02SDimitry AndricKey method is defined, but the linker doesn't see it 76*b5893f02SDimitry Andric---------------------------------------------------- 77*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 78*b5893f02SDimitry AndricIt's also possible that you have defined the key function somewhere, but the 79*b5893f02SDimitry Andricobject file containing the definition of that method isn't being linked into 80*b5893f02SDimitry Andricyour application. 81*b5893f02SDimitry Andric 82*b5893f02SDimitry AndricThe solution in this case is to check your dependencies to make sure that 83*b5893f02SDimitry Andricthe object file or the library file containing the key function is given to 84*b5893f02SDimitry Andricthe linker. 85