For the purpose of in-memory data representation, a C++ class can have either plain or static member functions, or virtual member functions (including some virtualdestructor, if any).
Plain or static member functions do not take any space in data memory, but of course their compiled code take some resource, e.g. as binary code in the text or code segment of your executable or your process. Of course, they can also require static data (or thread-local data), or local data (e.g. local variables) on the call stack.
My answer is Linux oriented. I don’t know Windows, and don’t know how GCC work on it.
Virtual member functions are very often implemented thru virtual method table (or vtable); a class having some virtual member functions usually have instances with a single (assuming single-inheritance) vtable-pointer pointing to that vtable (which is practically some data packed in the text segment).
Notice that vtables are not mandatory and are not required by C++11 standard. But I don’t know any C++ implementation not using them.
When you are using multiple-inheritance things become more complex, objects might have several vtable pointers.
So if you have a class (either a root class, or using single-inheritance), the consumption for virtual member functions is one vtable pointer per instance (plus the small space needed by the single vtable itself). It won’t change (for each instance) if you have only one virtual member function (or destructor) or a thousand of them (what would change is the vtable itself). Each class has its own single vtable (unless it has no virtual member function), and each instance has generally one (for single-inheritance case) vtable pointer.
The GCC compiler is free to organize the vtable as it wishes (and its order and layout is an implementation detail you should not care about); see also this. In practice (for single-inheritance) for most recent GCC versions, the vtable pointer is the first word of the object, and the vtable contain function pointers in the order of virtual method declaration, but you should not depend on such details.
The GCC compiler is free to organize the functions in the code segment as it wishes, and it would actually reorder them (e.g. for optimizations). Last time I looked, it ordered them in reverse order. But you certainly should not depend on that order! BTW GCC can inline functions (even when not marked inline) and clone functions when optimizing. You could also compile and link with link-time optimizations (e.g. make CXX='g++ -flto -Os'), and you could ask for profile-guided optimizations (for GCC: -fprofile-generate, -fprofile-use, -fauto-profile etc…)
You should not depend on how the compiler (and linker) is organizing function code or vtables. Leave the optimizations to the compiler (and such optimizations depend upon your target machine, your compiler flags, and the compiler version). You might also use function attributes to give hints to the GCC (or Clang/LLVM) compiler (e.g. __attribute__((cold)), __attribute__((noinline)) etc etc….)
If you really need to know how functions are placed (which IMHO is very wrong), study the generated assembly code (e.g. using g++ -O -fverbose-asm -S) and be aware that it could vary with compiler versions!
If you need on Linux and Posix systems at runtime to find out the address of a function from its name, consider using dlsym (for Linux, see dlsym(3), which also documents dladdr). Be aware of name mangling, which you can disable by declaring such functions as extern "C" (see C++ dlopen minihowto).
BTW, you might compile and link with -rdynamic (which is very useful for dlopen etc…). If you really need to know the address of functions, use nm(1) as nm -C your-executable.
You might also read the ABI specification and calling conventions for your target platform (and compiler), e.g. Linux x86-64 ABI spec.
5
solved How does GCC store member functions in memory?