Welcome to OStack Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
448 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c++11 - What is copy/move constructor choosing rule in C++? When does move-to-copy fallback happen?

The first example:

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;

struct A {
    unique_ptr<int> ref;
    A(const A&) = delete;
    A(A&&) = default;
    A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) { }
    ~A() = default;
};

int main()
{
    A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
   return 0;
}

It works perfectly. So here the MOVE constructor is used.

Let's remove the move constructor and add a copy one:

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;

struct A {
    unique_ptr<int> ref;
    A(const A&a) 
        : ref( a.ref.get() ? new int(*a.ref) : nullptr )
    {  }
    A(A&&) = delete;
    A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) { }
    ~A() = default;
};

int main()
{
    A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
   return 0;
}

Now the compilation falls with the error "use of deleted function ‘A::A(A&&)’"
So the MOVE constructor is REQUIRED and there is no fall back to a COPY constructor.

Now let's remove both copy- and move-constructors:

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;

struct A {
    unique_ptr<int> ref;
    A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) { }
    ~A() = default;
};

int main()
{
    A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
   return 0;
}

And it falls with "use of deleted function ‘A::A(const A&)’" compilation error. Now it REQUIRES a COPY constructor!
So there was a fallback (?) from the move constructor to the copy constructor.

Why? Does anyone have any idea how does it conform to the C++ standard and what actually is the rule of choosing among copy/move constructors?

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

The function that it's going to use is chosen before it checks if it is deleted or not. In the case that the copy constructor was available and the move constructor was deleted, the move constructor was still the best choice out of the two. Then it sees that it's deleted and gives you an error.

If you had the same example but actually removed the move constructor, rather than making it deleted, you'll see that it compiles fine and does fall back to use the copy constructor:

#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;

struct A {
    unique_ptr<int> ref;
    A(const A&a) 
        : ref( a.ref.get() ? new int(*a.ref) : nullptr )
    {  }
    A(const int i) : ref(new int(i)) { }
    ~A() = default;
};

int main()
{
    A a[2] = { 0, 1 };
   return 0;
}

This class does not have a move constructor declared for it at all (not even implicitly), therefore it cannot be chosen.


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome to OStack Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...