I wrote the following c++ code trying to understand copy elision in c++.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class B
{
public:
B(int x ) //default constructor
{
cout << "Constructor called" << endl;
}
B(const B &b) //copy constructor
{
cout << "Copy constructor called" << endl;
}
};
int main()
{
B ob =5;
ob=6;
ob=7;
return 0;
}
This produces the following output:
Constructor called
Constructor called
Constructor called
I fail to understand why is the constructor being called thrice with each assignment to object ob.
B ob =5;
This uses the given constructor.
ob=6;
This uses the given constructor because there is not a B& operator=(int) function and 6 must be converted to type B. One path to do this is to temporarily construct a B and use it in the assignment.
ob=7;
Same answer as above.
I fail to understand why is the constructor being called thrice with each assignment
As I stated above you do not have a B& operator=(int) function but the compiler is happy to provide a copy assignment operator (i.e., B& operator=(const B&);) for you automatically. The compiler generated assignment operator is being called and it takes a B type and all int types can be converted to a B type (via the constructor you provided).
Note: You can disable the implicit conversion by using explicit (i.e., explicit B(int x);) and I would recommend the use of explicit except when implicit conversions are desired.
Example
#include <iostream>
class B
{
public:
B(int x) { std::cout << "B ctor\n"; }
B(const B& b) { std::cout << B copy ctor\n"; }
};
B createB()
{
B b = 5;
return b;
}
int main()
{
B b = createB();
return 0;
}
Example Output
Note: Compiled using Visual Studio 2013 (Release)
B ctor
This shows the copy constructor was elided (i.e., the B instance in the createB function is triggered but no other constructors).
Each time you assign an instance of the variable ob of type B an integer value, you are basically constructing a new instance of B thus calling the constructor. Think about it, how else would the compiler know how to create an instance of B if not through the constructor taking an int as parameter?
If you overloaded the assignment operator for your class B taking an int, it would be called:
B& operator=(int rhs)
{
cout << "Assignment operator" << endl;
}
This would result in the first line: B ob = 5; to use the constructor, while the two following would use the assignment operator, see for yourself:
Constructor called
Assignment operator
Assignment operator
http://ideone.com/fAjoA4
If you do not want your constructor taking an int to be called upon assignment, you can declare it explicit like this:
explicit B(int x)
{
cout << "Constructor called" << endl;
}
This would cause a compiler error with your code, since it would no longer be allowed to implicitly construct an instance of B from an integer, instead it would have to be done explicitly, like this:
B ob(5);
On a side note, your constructor taking an int as parameter, is not a default constructor, a default constructor is a constructor which can be called with no arguments.
You are not taking the assignment operator into account. Since you have not defined your own operator=() implementation, the compiler generates a default operator=(const B&) implementation instead.
Thus, your code is effectively doing the following logic:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class B
{
public:
B(int x) //custom constructor
{
cout << "Constructor called" << endl;
}
B(const B &b) //copy constructor
{
cout << "Copy constructor called" << endl;
}
B& operator=(const B &b) //default assignment operator
{
return *this;
}
};
int main()
{
B ob(5);
ob.operator=(B(6));
ob.operator=(B(7));
return 0;
}
The compiler-generated operator=() operator expects a B object as input, but you are passing an int value instead. Since B has a non-explicit constructor that accepts an int as input, the compiler is free to perform an implicit conversion from int to B using a temporary object.
That is why you are seeing your constructor invoked three times - the two assignments are creating temporary B objects.
Related
From what I learned, I thought Foo a = 1 is equivalent to Foo a = (Foo)1.
With copy constructor declared, yes, they both result in calling Converting constructor.
class Foo
{
public:
// Converting constructor
Foo(int n) : value_(n) { std::cout << "Converting constructor." << std::endl; }
// Copy constructor
Foo(const Foo&) { std::couut << "Copy constructor." << std::endl; }
private:
int value_;
};
int main()
{
Foo a = 1; // OK - prints only "Converting constructor."
Foo b = (Foo)1; // OK - prints only "Converting constructor."
}
In contrast, without copy constructor, it doesn't compile even though it doesn't ever call copy constructor.
class Foo
{
public:
// Converting constructor
Foo(int n) : value_(n) { std::cout << "Converting constructor." << std::endl; }
// Copy constructor deleted
Foo(const Foo&) = delete;
private:
int value_;
};
int main()
{
Foo a = 1; // OK - prints only "Converting constructor."
Foo b = (Foo)1; // Error C2280: 'Foo::Foo(const Foo &)': attempting to reference a deleted function
}
What makes difference?
Thank you.
Foo a = 1; calls Foo(int n). (Foo)1 also calls Foo(int n). Foo b = (Foo)1; calls copy constructor Foo(const Foo&). Until C++17 the last call can be elided but the copy constructor must be available. Since C++17 copy elision is mandatory and the copy constructor isn't necessary: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_elision
Probably you're using a C++ standard before C++17 and the copy constructor is required but not called.
"From what I learned, I thought Foo a = 1 is equivalent to Foo a = (Foo)1." That's not equivalent. The first is one constructor call and the second is two constructor calls but one call can/must be elided.
I wrote the following program to test when the copy constructor is called and when the assignment operator is called:
#include
class Test
{
public:
Test() :
iItem (0)
{
std::cout << "This is the default ctor" << std::endl;
}
Test (const Test& t) :
iItem (t.iItem)
{
std::cout << "This is the copy ctor" << std::endl;
}
~Test()
{
std::cout << "This is the dtor" << std::endl;
}
const Test& operator=(const Test& t)
{
iItem = t.iItem;
std::cout << "This is the assignment operator" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
private:
int iItem;
};
int main()
{
{
Test t1;
Test t2 = t1;
}
{
Test t1;
Test t2 (t1);
}
{
Test t1;
Test t2;
t2 = t1;
}
}
This results in the following output (just added empy lines to make it more understandable):
doronw#DW01:~$ ./test
This is the default ctor
This is the copy ctor
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
This is the default ctor
This is the copy ctor
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
This is the default ctor
This is the default ctor
This is the assignment operator
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
The second and third set behave as expected, but in the first set the copy constructor is called even though the assignment operator is used.
Is this behaviour part of the C++ standard or just a clever compiler optimization (I am using gcc 4.4.1)
No assignment operator is used in the first test-case. It just uses the initialization form called "copy initialization". Copy initialization does not consider explicit constructors when initializing the object.
struct A {
A();
// explicit copy constructor
explicit A(A const&);
// explicit constructor
explicit A(int);
// non-explicit "converting" constructor
A(char const*c);
};
A a;
A b = a; // fail
A b1(a); // succeeds, "direct initialization"
A c = 1; // fail, no converting constructor found
A d(1); // succeeds
A e = "hello"; // succeeds, converting constructor used
Copy initialization is used in those cases that correspond to implicit conversions, where one does not explicitly kick off a conversion, as in function argument passing, and returning from a function.
C++ standard 8.5/12
The initialization that occurs in
argument passing, function return,
throwing an exception (15.1), handling
an exception (15.3), and
brace-enclosed initializer lists
(8.5.1) is called copy-initialization
and is equivalent to the form
T x = a;
The initialization that occurs in new
expressions (5.3.4), static_cast
expressions (5.2.9), functional
notation type conversions (5.2.3), and
base and member initializers (12.6.2)
is called direct-initialization and is
equivalent to the form
T x(a);
Your first set is according to the C++ standard, and not due to some optimization.
Section 12.8 ([class.copy]) of the C++ standard gives a similar example:
class X {
// ...
public:
X(int);
X(const X&, int = 1);
};
X a(1); // calls X(int);
X b(a, 0); // calls X(const X&, int);
X c = b; // calls X(const X&, int);
The last line would be the one matching your case.
In the code below, Class A has a vector of ints. Class B inherits from A and has an iterator to the vector. The constructor of B initializes the iterator of B. But when we print, we get garbage. Why does the cout in main print garbage? Am I missing something?
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
class A {
public:
A() {}
A(const A& copyFrom) : intList(copyFrom.intList) {} //copy constructor
virtual ~A() {}
void populateList()
{
for(int i=10; i<100; i++)
{
intList.push_back(i);
}
}
protected:
std::vector<int> intList;
};
class B : public A {
public:
B() : A() {}
B(const A& a) : A(a), intIt(intList.begin())
{
std::cout << "constructor with base class param called" << std::endl;
}
B(const B& b) : A(b), intIt(intList.begin()) //copy constructor
{
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
}
std::vector<int>::iterator intIt;
};
int main() {
A a;
a.populateList();
B b ;
b = B(a);
std::cout << *b.intIt << std::endl; //prints garbage. why?
}
Thanks!
B b ;
b = B(a); //the copy constructor of B is not called here. Why?
The operation in that line is assignment, not copy constructor. The copy constructor would be:
B b = someotherB;
Note that semantically this is also copy-constructing:
B b = B(a);
But the compiler will more often than not elide the copy contruction by creating B(a) in place of b.
The expression b = B(a) separated from declaration is assignment, not copy construction. This is one of the confusing things about C++:
Foo x(y); // copy-construction
Foo x = y; // also copy-construction, equivalent to the above
Foo x; x = y; // default-construction followed by assignment, different
// (and possibly less efficient) than the above
Failing to define an assignment operator will create a default one that performs member-wise assignment. This is OK for the intList member, but the assigned intIt will keep pointing to the old list, which in your case belongs to the temporary reference to B created by the B(a) expression. As soon as this reference is destroyed (which is at the end of the outermost expression), its intList is destroyed and the iterator becomes invalid.
In other words, B b; b = B(a) is equivalent to:
B b; // constructor
{
B tmp(a); // copy constructor
b = tmp; // member-wise assignment
// at this point, b.intList is a copy of tmp.intList, but b.intIt
// points to the beginning of tmp.intList, not to the beginning of
// b.intList
}
// tmp is destroyed and b.intIt now points to the beginning of a deleted list
It is your responsibility to define an assignment operator that maintains the invariant of intIt referring to an element in intList; for example:
B& operator=(const B& rhs)
{
intList = rhs.intList;
intIt = intList.begin() + (rhs.intIt - rhs.intList.begin());
std::cout << "assignment called" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
Also note that all iterators into the vector are invalidated when you change the size of the vector, even if you only append with push_back(). So populateList(), and other methods that can change the size of the vector should be overridden in B to also recalculate intIt. For these reasons it would be a better idea to avoid using an iterator and simply store the position into the vector, and have a function that returns intList.begin() + pos, thus creating an iterator on-demand that is guaranteed to be valid. Then you wouldn't need to define neither a copy-constructor nor an assignment operator, as the compiler-supplied defaults would work just fine.
The Copy construction will not be called because you are not assigning object of same class
b = B(a); //the copy constructor of B is not called here. Why?
in above code below constructor will be called because you are passing object of type A
B(const A& a) : A(a), intIt(intList.begin())
{
std::cout << "constructor with base class param called" << std::endl;
}
Iterator value will not be usable because you are not initializing it
std::cout << *(b.intIt) << std::endl; //prints garbage. why?
you need to initalize it
std::vector<X>::iterator iter; //no particular value
iter = some_vector.begin(); //iter is now usable
Suppose I have a class A. I have defined a copy constructor and an assignment operator overloading function. When I do
Class A;
Class B=A;
Then while defining Class B, is the copy constructor invoked or the assignment operator?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
Sorry, I mentioned wrong code. It should be:
A a;
A b=a;
IIRC T t = value invokes the copy constructor, you can verify that by outputting a string in the constructors to determine which method is used. IIRC when the declaration and assignment are on the same line, it is not called assignment but initialization.
On the other hand, what you've posted does not make sense, you cannot assign one type to another type, you can only assign to type instances.
EDIT: Even if you have a case of two different types (the context of your question is not clear on this one):
class A {};
class B {
public:
B(const A& other) { cout << "copy"; }
B& operator=(const A& other) { cout << "assign"; }
};
int main() {
A a;
B b = a; // copy con
B b1(a); // same as above
b = a; // assign op
}
Even then, when both the "copy constructor" and assignment operators take in another type, the copy constructor will still be invoked rather than the assignment operator.
Assuming you actually mean something like:
A a;
A b = a;
The copy constructor is invoked. The Standard allows = this special meaning in this usage.
Create a simple class with both, and debug what function is executed by setting a breakpoint in both. Then youll see, and youll also learn a little bit of debugging.
Let's try it out!
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
A() {
std::cout << "default constructor\n";
}
A(const A& other) {
std::cout << "copy constructor\n";
}
A& operator=(const A& rhs) {
std::cout << "assignment operator\n";
return *this;
}
};
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
std::cout << "first declaration: ";
A a;
std::cout << "second declaration: ";
A b(a);
std::cout << "third declaration: ";
A c = a;
std::cout << "fourth declaration: ";
A d;
std::cout << "copying? ";
d = a;
return 0;
}
This prints:
first declaration: default constructor
second declaration: copy constructor
third declaration: copy constructor
fourth declaration: default constructor
copying? assignment operator
Working example here: http://codepad.org/DNCpqK2E
when you are defining a new object with assigning another object into it. It invokes copy constructor.
e.g,
Copy constructor call:
Class A;
Class B=A;
Assignment operator call:
Class A;
Class B;
B=A;
You can always test this, by writing a "print" statement in both the methods to find out which one is being called.
Hope it helped...
I wrote the following program to test when the copy constructor is called and when the assignment operator is called:
#include
class Test
{
public:
Test() :
iItem (0)
{
std::cout << "This is the default ctor" << std::endl;
}
Test (const Test& t) :
iItem (t.iItem)
{
std::cout << "This is the copy ctor" << std::endl;
}
~Test()
{
std::cout << "This is the dtor" << std::endl;
}
const Test& operator=(const Test& t)
{
iItem = t.iItem;
std::cout << "This is the assignment operator" << std::endl;
return *this;
}
private:
int iItem;
};
int main()
{
{
Test t1;
Test t2 = t1;
}
{
Test t1;
Test t2 (t1);
}
{
Test t1;
Test t2;
t2 = t1;
}
}
This results in the following output (just added empy lines to make it more understandable):
doronw#DW01:~$ ./test
This is the default ctor
This is the copy ctor
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
This is the default ctor
This is the copy ctor
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
This is the default ctor
This is the default ctor
This is the assignment operator
This is the dtor
This is the dtor
The second and third set behave as expected, but in the first set the copy constructor is called even though the assignment operator is used.
Is this behaviour part of the C++ standard or just a clever compiler optimization (I am using gcc 4.4.1)
No assignment operator is used in the first test-case. It just uses the initialization form called "copy initialization". Copy initialization does not consider explicit constructors when initializing the object.
struct A {
A();
// explicit copy constructor
explicit A(A const&);
// explicit constructor
explicit A(int);
// non-explicit "converting" constructor
A(char const*c);
};
A a;
A b = a; // fail
A b1(a); // succeeds, "direct initialization"
A c = 1; // fail, no converting constructor found
A d(1); // succeeds
A e = "hello"; // succeeds, converting constructor used
Copy initialization is used in those cases that correspond to implicit conversions, where one does not explicitly kick off a conversion, as in function argument passing, and returning from a function.
C++ standard 8.5/12
The initialization that occurs in
argument passing, function return,
throwing an exception (15.1), handling
an exception (15.3), and
brace-enclosed initializer lists
(8.5.1) is called copy-initialization
and is equivalent to the form
T x = a;
The initialization that occurs in new
expressions (5.3.4), static_cast
expressions (5.2.9), functional
notation type conversions (5.2.3), and
base and member initializers (12.6.2)
is called direct-initialization and is
equivalent to the form
T x(a);
Your first set is according to the C++ standard, and not due to some optimization.
Section 12.8 ([class.copy]) of the C++ standard gives a similar example:
class X {
// ...
public:
X(int);
X(const X&, int = 1);
};
X a(1); // calls X(int);
X b(a, 0); // calls X(const X&, int);
X c = b; // calls X(const X&, int);
The last line would be the one matching your case.