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…