Unexpected default constructor call when using move semantics - c++

I have two similar pieces of code. The first version unexpectedly calls the default constructor while the second doesn't. They both call the move operator / move constructor, respectively, as expected.
class MyResource
{
public:
MyResource() : m_data(0) { std::cout << "Default Ctor" << std::endl; }
MyResource(int data) : m_data(data) { std::cout << "Int Ctor" << std::endl; }
MyResource(MyResource const& other) = delete;
MyResource& operator=(MyResource const& other) = delete;
MyResource(MyResource&& other) noexcept : m_data(other.m_data) { std::cout << "Move Ctor" << std::endl; }
MyResource& operator=(MyResource&& other) noexcept { std::cout << "Move Op" << std::endl; m_data = other.m_data; return *this; }
~MyResource() { std::cout << "Dtor" << std::endl; }
private:
int m_data = 0;
};
class MyWrapper
{
public:
MyWrapper(MyResource&& resource)
// : m_resource(std::move(resource)) // Version 2
{
// m_resource = std::move(resource); // Version 1
}
private:
MyResource m_resource;
};
My test usage is:
MyWrapper* wrapper = new MyWrapper(MyResource(1));
delete wrapper;
With Version 1, I get:
Int Ctor
Default Ctor
Move Op
Dtor
Dtor
While Version 2 outputs:
Int Ctor
Move Ctor
Dtor
Dtor
What's the reason behind this difference?
Why does version 1 call the default constructor?

Members are initialized before the construct body runs. A much simpler example to see the same:
#include <iostream>
struct foo {
foo(int) { std::cout << "ctr\n";}
foo() { std::cout << "default ctr\n";}
void operator=(const foo&) { std::cout << "assignment\n"; }
};
struct bar {
foo f;
bar(int) : f(1) {}
bar() {
f = foo();
}
};
int main() {
bar b;
std::cout << "---------\n";
bar c(1);
}
Output:
default ctr
default ctr
assignment
---------
ctr
You cannot initialize a member in the body of the constructor! If you do not provide an initializer, either in the member initializer list or as an in class initializer, then f is default constructed. In the constructor body you can only assign to an already initialized member.

Related

Capturing lambda in std::function results in extra copies

I am trying to write some code which allows me to call a function at some later time by storing the function call and its arguments in a lambda/std::function. Ideally, the arguments would only be copied ONCE (and moved oterhwise) but the smallest number of copies I can achieve seems to be 2.
//==============================================================================
// INCLUDES
//==============================================================================
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
#include <memory>
//==============================================================================
// VARIABLES
//==============================================================================
static std::unique_ptr<std::function<void()>> queueFunction;
//==============================================================================
// CLASSES
//==============================================================================
class Test {
public:
Test(int a, int b = 20, int c = 30) : _a(a), _b(b), _c(c) {
std::cout << "Test: Constructor" << std::endl;
}
~Test() {
std::cout << "Test: Destructor" << std::endl;
}
Test(const Test& other) :
_a(other._a)
{
std::cout << "Test: Copy Constructor" << std::endl;
}
Test(Test&& other) :
_a(std::move(other._a))
{
std::cout << "Test: Move Constructor" << std::endl;
}
Test& operator=(const Test& other) {
if (this != &other) {
_a = other._a;
std::cout << "Test: Assignment Operator" << std::endl;
}
return *this;
}
Test& operator=(Test&& other) {
if (this != &other) {
_a = std::move(other._a);
std::cout << "Test: Move Assignment Operator" << std::endl;
}
return *this;
}
friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Test& v) {
os << "{a=" << v._a << "}";
return os;
}
private:
int _a;
int _b;
int _c;
};
//==============================================================================
// FUNCTIONS
//==============================================================================
void foo(const Test& t);
void _foo(const Test& t);
template <typename F>
void queue(F&& fn) {
std::cout << "queue()" << std::endl;
queueFunction = std::make_unique<std::function<void()>>(std::forward<F>(fn));
}
void dequeue() {
std::cout << "dequeue()" << std::endl;
if (queueFunction) {
(*queueFunction)();
}
queueFunction.reset();
}
void foo(const Test& t) {
std::cout << "foo()" << std::endl;
queue([t](){
_foo(t);
});
//Only a single copy of Test is made here
/*
[t](){
_foo(t);
}();
*/
}
void _foo(const Test& t) {
std::cout << "_foo()" << std::endl;
std::cout << "t=" << t << std::endl;
}
//==============================================================================
// MAIN
//==============================================================================
int main() {
std::cout << "main()" << std::endl;
Test test1(20);
foo(test1);
dequeue();
std::cout << "main() return" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
The output of the above code is:
main()
Test: Constructor
foo()
Test: Copy Constructor
queue()
Test: Copy Constructor
Test: Copy Constructor
Test: Destructor
Test: Destructor
dequeue()
_foo()
t={a=20}
Test: Destructor
main() return
Test: Destructor
Which makes no sense to me. Shouldn't the lambda capture the instance of Test once, then forward that lambda all the way to the new std::function thus causing a move?
If I modify my queue function as such I can at least get rid of once copy.
void queue(std::function<void()> fn) {
std::cout << "queue()" << std::endl;
queueFunction = std::make_unique<std::function<void()>>(std::move(fn));
}
Output:
main()
Test: Constructor
foo()
Test: Copy Constructor
Test: Copy Constructor
queue()
Test: Destructor
dequeue()
_foo()
t={a=20}
Test: Destructor
main() return
Test: Destructor
But I still cannot understand where the extra copy is coming from.
Can someone help to enlighten me?
AFAICT the problem is the const of the foo() argument. When you capture t inside foo(const Test& t), then the type of that capture inside the lambda is also const. Later when you forward the lambda, the lambda's move constructor will have no choice but copy, not move, the capture. You cannot move from const.
After changing foo to foo(Test& t) I get:
main()
Test: Constructor
foo()
Test: Copy Constructor
queue()
Test: Move Constructor
Test: Move Constructor
Test: Destructor
Test: Destructor
dequeue()
_foo()
t={a=20}
Test: Destructor
main() return
Test: Destructor
Alternative solution, mentioned in https://stackoverflow.com/a/31485150/85696, is to use capture in the form [t=t].
With move-capture and two other changes it is possible to eliminate this remaining copy constructor too:
- void foo(const Test& t) {
+ void foo(Test t) {
...
- queue([t](){
+ queue([t = std::move(t)](){
...
- foo(test1);
+ foo(std::move(test1));
main()
Test: Constructor
Test: Move Constructor
foo()
Test: Move Constructor
queue()
Test: Move Constructor
Test: Move Constructor
Test: Destructor
Test: Destructor
Test: Destructor
dequeue()
_foo()
t={a=20}
Test: Destructor
main() return
Test: Destructor

Should this code call copy or move constructor

What's the requirements on the following case in the current C++ Standard?
Suppose that we have the following code:
#include <iostream>
struct Foo
{
Foo() { std::cout << "Foo::Foo()" << std::endl; }
Foo(Foo&) { std::cout << "Foo::Foo(Foo&)" << std::endl; }
Foo(Foo&&) { std::cout << "Foo::Foo(Foo&&)" << std::endl; }
~Foo() { std::cout << "Foo::~Foo()" << std::endl; }
};
struct Bar
{
Foo foo;
};
int main()
{
Bar instance{ Foo{} };
}
What should any implementation do here according to the Standard? Does it require both copy and move constructor to exist (not to be deleted)? Which one should it call?
Since Foo{} is a prvalue and you preform copy initialization, the answer depends on what standard revision you are working with.
C++14 requires the move c'tor to be accessible and not deleted. Even though the actual move may and most probably will be elided.
C++17 will directly initialize the member foo, so both copy and move c'tor need not exist or be accessible.
As an aside, if you opt out of copy initialization and do direct initialization, you can delete both the move and copy c'tors in C++14 as well:
#include <iostream>
struct Foo
{
Foo() { std::cout << "Foo::Foo()" << std::endl; }
Foo(Foo&) = delete;
Foo(Foo&&) = delete;
~Foo() { std::cout << "Foo::~Foo()" << std::endl; }
};
struct Bar
{
Foo foo;
};
int main()
{
Bar instance{ {} };
}

Empty default constructor, copy constructor and copy assignment: Why with a singleton the member variables are not random?

I am studying constructor, copy constructors and copy assignment a while and I read a fair amount of contents mainly from here as In which situations is the C++ copy constructor called? and What is The Rule of Three? and others, but I still no deeply understanding their exactly behavior. I am performing some tests with the class Boo and Foo bellow and their results are not the ones that I was expecting. In the class Boo I explictly declared its default constructor, copy constructor and copy assingment, and I defined them to do nothing. From this I was expecting that the objects from this class would have member variables with random values, what was indeed observed. Nevertheless, this behavior was not seen with the objects from the class Foo. The only difference between these classes are that the later is a singleton, but its default constructor, copy constructor and copy assignment still explicit declared and defined to do nothing. From this I state my question: Why the values of the member variables of objects from class Foo are not randomly initialized, but always has de same value of "0" and " "?
#include <iostream>
class Boo {
private:
int x;
char y;
public:
int getInt() { return x; }
char getChar() { return y; }
Boo () { std::cout << "Boo default constructor\n"; }
Boo ( const Boo& other ) { std::cout << "Boo copy constructor\n"; }
Boo& operator= ( const Boo& other) { std::cout << "Boo copy assinment\n";
return *this;}
};
class Foo {
private:
int x;
char y;
static Foo *instance;
protected:
Foo() { std::cout << "Foo default constructor\n"; }
Foo ( const Foo& other ) { std::cout << "Foo copy constructor\n"; }
Foo& operator=( const Foo& other) { std::cout << "Foo copy assignment\n"; }
public:
static Foo & uniqueInst();
int getInt() { return x; }
char getChar() { return y; }
};
Foo *Foo::instance = 0;
Foo & Foo::uniqueInst(){
if(!instance) instance = new Foo();
return *instance;
};
int main(){
Boo b1; // default constructor
Boo b2; // default constructor
Boo b3 = b1; // copy constructor
b2 = b1;
std::cout << b1.getInt() << std::endl; // Random values since the constructor does nothing
std::cout << b1.getChar() << std::endl;
std::cout << b2.getInt() << std::endl; // Random values since the copy assignment does nothing
std::cout << b2.getChar() << std::endl;
std::cout << b3.getInt() << std::endl; // Random values since the copy constructor does nothing
std::cout << b3.getChar() << std::endl;
Foo *foo;
foo = &Foo::uniqueInst(); // defaulf construtor
std::cout << foo << std::endl;
std::cout << foo->getInt() << std::endl; // Why not random values?
std::cout << foo->getChar() << std::endl;
};

vector push back clarifying

I can't figure out how push_back(const value_type& val) exactly works, in docs it says about val that
val is Value to be copied (or moved) to the new element ...
How it can be copied when it takes val by reference ?
Will that copying ever call the copy constructor of val ?
and what's exactly happening here ?
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct x
{
x(int v = 0) : v(v) {}
int v;
};
vector<vector<x>> parts;
void fillParts()
{
vector<x> values = { x(1), x(2), x(3) };
parts.push_back(values);
}
int main()
{
fillParts();
parts[0][0].v = -123;
cout << parts[0][0].v; // -123
return 0;
}
this runs with no erros,
is parts[0] is a reference to local vector values or a copy ?
if it is a reference shouldn't it at least give some warnings saying that your accessing and modifying local objects of freed stack ?
How it can be copied when it takes val by reference?
Think of a copy constructor.
It takes parameter by reference, and it performs copying perfectly.
class Bar
{
public:
Bar(const Bar & rhs); // by reference, to copy.
};
Will that copying ever call the copy constructor of val ?
Copy operation uses copy constructor.
You can actually see if it's copied, or moved by providing user-defined constructors.
struct x
{
public:
x(const x & rhs)
{
// Some copy operation.
std::cout << "Copied" << std::endl;
}
x(x && rhs)
{
// Some move operation.
std::cout << "Moved" << std::endl;
}
};
You can try this
class A
{
public:
A() {}
A(const A&) { cout << "copy cons" << endl; }
A& operator= (A &&) { cout << "move" << endl; };
A& operator= (const A &) { cout << "copy" << endl; };
};
vector<A> parts;
void fillParts()
{
A a;
parts.push_back(a);
}
int main()
{
fillParts();
return 0;
}
I got copy cons called in both debug and release builds.

Vector reallocation uses copy instead of move constructor

Hi I created a class Foo with a noexcept move constructor using gcc 4.7 and set the vector reserve size to 2 so that it would have to reallocate the size when adding the 3rd item. It seems it is calling the copy constructor instead of the move constructor when doing this. Am I missing something here?
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(int x) : data_(x)
{
std::cout << " constructing " << std::endl;
}
~Foo()
{
std::cout << " destructing " << std::endl;
}
Foo& operator=(const Foo&) = default;
Foo& operator=(Foo&&) = default;
Foo(Foo&& other) noexcept : data_(std::move(other.data_))
{
std::cout << " Move constructing " << std::endl;
}
Foo(const Foo& other) noexcept : data_(other.data_)
{
std::cout << " Copy constructing " << std::endl;
}
private:
int data_;
};
int main ( int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::vector<Foo> v;
v.reserve(2);
v.emplace_back(1);
std::cout << "Added 1" << std::endl;
v.emplace_back(2);
std::cout << "Added 2" << std::endl;
v.emplace_back(3);
std::cout << "Added 3" << std::endl;
std::cout << "v size: " << v.size() << std::endl;
}
output:
constructing
Added 1
constructing
Added 2
constructing
Copy constructing
Copy constructing
destructing
destructing
Added 3
v size: 3
destructing
destructing
destructing
After tinkering with it a bit with both GCC 4.7 and 4.8, it seems that it is indeed a bug in 4.7, which only appears when the class' destructor is not marked noexcept:
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
~Foo() noexcept {}
Foo(Foo&&) noexcept { std::cout << "move constructor" << std::endl; }
Foo(const Foo&) noexcept { std::cout << "copy constructor" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
std::vector<Foo> v;
v.reserve(2);
v.emplace_back();
v.emplace_back();
v.emplace_back();
}
GCC 4.7 displays:
move constructor
move constructor
If we remove noexcept from the destructor:
struct Foo {
Foo() {}
~Foo() {}
Foo(Foo&&) noexcept { std::cout << "move constructor" << std::endl; }
Foo(const Foo&) noexcept { std::cout << "copy constructor" << std::endl; }
};
GCC 4.7 displays:
copy constructor
copy constructor
GCC 4.8 uses the move constructor in both cases.