I am having trouble understanding why the lifetime of temporaries bound to const reference parameters is cut short when there is a perfect forwarding constructor around. First of, what we know about temporaries bound to reference parameters: they last for the full expression:
A temporary bound to a reference parameter in a function call (5.2.2) persists until the completion of the full expression containing the call
However I found cases where this is not true (or I might simply misunderstand what a full expression is). Let's take a simple example, first we define an object with verbose constructors and destructors:
struct A {
A(int &&) { cout << "create A" << endl; }
A(A&&) { cout << "move A" << endl; }
~A(){ cout << "kill A" << endl; }
};
And an object wrapper B, which will be used for reference collapsing:
template <class T> struct B {
T value;
B() : value() { cout << "new B" << endl; }
B(const T &__a) : value(__a) { cout << "create B" << endl; }
B(const B &p) = default;
B(B && o) = default;
~B(){ cout << "kill B" << endl; };
};
We can now use our wrapper to capture references on temporaries and use them in function calls, like so:
void foo(B<const A&> a){ cout << "Using A" << endl; }
int main(){ foo( {123} ); }
The program above prints what I would expect:
create A
create B
Using A
kill B
kill A
So far so good. Now let's move back to B and add a perfect forwarding constructor for convertible types:
template <class T> struct B {
/* ... */
template <class U, class = typename enable_if<is_convertible<U, T>::value>::type>
B(U &&v) : value(std::forward<U>(v)) {
cout << "new forward initialized B" << endl;
}
};
Compiling the same code again now gives:
create A
new forward initialized B
kill A
Using A
kill B
Note that our A object was now killed before it was used, which is bad! Why did the lifetime of the temporary not get extended to the full call of foo in this case? Also, there is no other call to the desctructor of A, so there is no other instance of it.
I can see two possible explanations:
either the types are not what I think they are: changing the convertible move constructor to B(T &&v) instead of template <class U>B(U &&v) solves the problem.
or {123} is not a subexpression of foo( {123} ). Swapping {123} for A(123) also solves the issue, which makes me wonder if brace-initializers are full expressions.
Could someone clarify what is going on here?
Does this mean that adding a forwarding constructor to a class could break backward compatibility in some cases, like it did for B?
You can find the full code here, with another test case crashing for references to strings.
The type inferred for U in the call to B<A const&>::B(U&&) is int, so the only temporary that can be lifetime-extended for the call to foo in main is a prvalue int temporary initialized to 123.
The member A const& value is bound to a temporary A, but that A is created in the mem-initializer-list of the constructor B<A const&>::B(U&&) so its lifetime is extended only for the duration of that member initialization [class.temporary]/5:
— A temporary bound to a reference member in a constructor’s ctor-initializer (12.6.2) persists until the constructor exits.
Note that a mem-initializer-list is the part after the colon in a ctor-initializer:
template <class U, class = typename enable_if<is_convertible<U, T>::value>::type>
B(U &&v) : value(std::forward<U>(v)) {
^--- ctor-initializer
^--- reference member
^--- temporary A
This is why kill A is printed after new forward initialized B.
Does this mean that adding a forwarding constructor to a class could break backward compatibility in some cases, like it did for B?
Yes. In this case it's difficult to see why the forwarding constructor would be necessary; it's certainly dangerous where you have a reference member that a temporary could be bound to.
void foo(B<const A&> b);
foo( {123} );
is semantically equivalent to:
B<const A&> b = {123};
that for a non-explicit constructor is semantically equivalent to:
B<const A&> b{123};
going further, since your forwarding-constructor takes anything, it actually is initialized with int, not A:
B<const A&>::B(int&& v)
That is, a temporary instance of A is created on the constructor's initialization list:
B(int&& v) : value(A{v}) {}
// created here ^ ^ destroyed here
which is legal, just like you can type const A& a{123};.
This A instance is destroyed after the B's construction is finished, and you end up with a dangling reference within the body of foo.
The situation changes when you build the instance in a call expression, then the A temporary ends its lifetime at the end of the call expression:
foo( A{123} );
// ^ A is destroyed here
so it stays alive within foo, and the forwarding-constructor selected for B<const A&> is instantiated with a type A&&.
Related
I got to know that to make a friend function, friend function should be explicitly declared in enclosing scope or take an argument of its class. However, this one seems to be a caveat, I am failed to understand. Why does the call to f1(99) not works?
class X {
public:
X(int i) {
std::cout << "Ctor called" << std::endl;
}
friend int f1(X&);
friend int f2(const X&);
friend int f3(X);
};
int f1(X& a) {
std::cout << "non-const called" << std::endl;
}
int f2(const X& a) {
std::cout << "const called" << std::endl;
}
int f3(X a) {
std::cout << "object called" << std::endl;
}
int main() {
f1(99);
f2(99);
f3(99);
}
You're calling the functions with argument 99; but all the functions expect an X. 99 could convert to X implicitly, but the converted X is a temporary object and can't be bound to lvalue-reference to non-const.
The temporary object could be bound to lvalue-reference to const (and also rvalue-reference since C++11), then f2(99); works. And it could be copied to the parameter of f3, then f3(99) works too.
The effects of reference initialization are:
Otherwise, if the reference is lvalue reference to a non-volatile const-qualified type or rvalue reference (since C++11):
Otherwise, object is implicitly converted to T. The reference is bound to the result of the conversion (after materializing a temporary) (since C++17). If the object (or, if the conversion is
done by user-defined conversion, the result of the conversion
function) is of type T or derived from T, it must be equally or less
cv-qualified than T, and, if the reference is an rvalue reference, must not be an lvalue (since C++11).
When running the following code, which involves changing the value of a int via a method of a class called B, which inherits from a templated class A, the value of the int doesn't change, and I cannot understand why, I have tested both of these with clang trunk and gcc trunk:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A
{
A(T& a_num_) : a_num(a_num_) {}
T& a_num;
};
struct B : public A<int>
{
template<typename... Args>
B(Args... args) : A<int>(args...) {}
void do_something()
{
a_num = 1634;
}
};
int main(void)
{
int num = 4;
B b {num};
b.do_something();
std::cout << num;
return 0;
}
I would expect to get 1634 printed, but instead 4 prints.
I have narrowed the error to the constructor of B, because if I change the constructor of B to be:
B(int& x) : A<int>(x) {}
then the correct value appears, but the current constructor should also be receiving an int, because when I type:
B b {num};
Then it should choose Args = [int&], because that's the only way to satisfy A's constructor, which takes a T&, so what is happening here? What is a_num in this case? Just a garbage reference that doesn't reference anything, or possibly a temporary object?
I've also tried to rewrite the do_something function as
A<int>::a_num = 1634
but it still doesn't manage to change it.
I've also noticed that declaring b as:
B b {6};
Also works, although there's no way 6, which is a pr-value, could bind to a l-value reference.
So my question here is why does B's constructor choose Args = [int] instead of Args = [int&] and how can it do this when it then passes that Args to a constructor that takes a T&?
The only time a template type parameter will be deduced to be a reference type is when you declare the corresponding function parameter to be T&& and pass an lvalue to the function.
That means in this case Args is deduced to be {int}. After B's constructor is instantiated, it looks like this:
B(int arg) : A<int>(arg) {}
This is perfectly valid, because arg is an lvalue, and so the a_num_ parameter to A's constructor can bind to it. You then copy that reference to the A's a_num member and then the function parameter it's bound to goes out of scope and a_num becomes a dangling reference. The behavior when you attempt to assign through a_num is therefore undefined.
If you want B's constructor to take its arguments by reference, then you need to define the argument's type to be a reference:
tmeplate <typename... Args>
B(Args&... args) : A<int>(args) {}
If you do that then b.a_num will be a reference to the num you defined in main and everything will work like you expect.
You should change B's constructor to take Args as a reference Args&...:
template<typename... Args>
B(Args&... args) : A<int>(args...) {}
Now your code will print 1634 as you originally wanted.
Confirming the memory addresses
If you want to confirm that those variables point to the same memory address, you can do:
std::cout << &num << '\n';
std::cout << &b.a_num << '\n';
This prints the same memory address. For example:
0x7fff5508cac8
0x7fff5508cac8
Using pointers
Since the idea is to make both num and A::a_num point to the same memory address, it is worth mentioning a solution that uses pointers. In that case, you don't have to change B's constructor, but you have to change A::a_num to be a T*.
template<typename T>
struct A
{
A(T* a_num_) : a_num(a_num_) {}
T* a_num;
};
struct B : public A<int>
{
template<typename... Args>
B(Args... args) : A<int>(args...) {}
void do_something() {
*a_num = 1634;
}
};
int main(void)
{
int num = 4;
B b {&num};
b.do_something();
std::cout << num;
}
This code also prints 1634 as you originally wanted.
Edit: I should remember that this code is bad practice and should never be recommended for production use. The memory address of local variables should never be passed around since they are only valid while the scope exists in the stack. We can implement much better code by using smart pointers or simply by copying the values instead of reusing their memory addresses.
I have a class with copy & move ctor deleted.
struct A
{
A(int a):data(a){}
~A(){ std::cout << "~A()" << this << " : " << data << std::endl; }
A(A const &obj) = delete;
A(A &&obj) = delete;
friend std::ostream & operator << ( std::ostream & out , A const & obj);
int data;
};
And I want to create a tuple with objects of this class. But the following does not compile:
auto p = std::tuple<A,A>(A{10},A{20});
On the other hand, the following does compile, but gives a surprising output.
int main() {
auto q = std::tuple<A&&,A&&>(A{100},A{200});
std::cout << "q created\n";
}
Output
~A()0x22fe10 : 100
~A()0x22fe30 : 200
q created
It means that dtor for objects is called as soon as tuple construction line ends. So, what is significance of a tuple of destroyed objects?
This is bad:
auto q = std::tuple<A&&,A&&>(A{100},A{200});
you are constructing a tuple of rvalue references to temporaries that get destroyed at the end of the expression, so you're left with dangling references.
The correct statement would be:
std::tuple<A, A> q(100, 200);
However, until quite recently, the above was not supported by the standard. In N4296, the wording around the relevant constructor for tuple is [tuple.cnstr]:
template <class... UTypes>
constexpr explicit tuple(UTypes&&... u);
Requires: sizeof...(Types) == sizeof...(UTypes). is_constructible<Ti, Ui&&>::value is true
for all i.
Effects: Initializes the elements in the tuple with the corresponding value in std::forward<UTypes>(u).
Remark: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless each type in UTypes is
implicitly convertible to its corresponding type in Types.
So, this constructor was not participating in overload resolution because int is not implicitly convertible to A. This has been resolved by the adoption of Improving pair and tuple, which addressed precisely your use-case:
struct D { D(int); D(const D&) = delete; };
std::tuple<D> td(12); // Error
The new wording for this constructor is, from N4527:
Remarks: This constructor shall not participate in overload resolution unless sizeof...(Types) >= 1 and is_constructible<Ti, Ui&&>::value is true for all i. The constructor is explicit if and only
if is_convertible<Ui&&, Ti>::value is false for at least one i.
And is_constructible<A, int&&>::value is true.
To present the difference another way, here is an extremely stripped down tuple implementation:
struct D { D(int ) {} D(const D& ) = delete; };
template <typename T>
struct Tuple {
Tuple(const T& t)
: T(t)
{ }
template <typename U,
#ifdef USE_OLD_RULES
typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_convertible<U, T>::value>
#else
typename = std::enable_if_t<std::is_constructible<T, U&&>::value>
#endif
>
Tuple(U&& u)
: t(std::forward<U>(u))
{ }
T t;
};
int main()
{
Tuple<D> t(12);
}
If USE_OLD_RULES is defined, the first constructor is the only viable constructor and hence the code will not compile since D is noncopyable. Otherwise, the second constructor is the best viable candidate and that one is well-formed.
The adoption was recent enough that neither gcc 5.2 nor clang 3.6 actually will compile this example yet. So you will either need a newer compiler than that (gcc 6.0 works) or come up with a different design.
Your problem is that you explicitly asked for a tuple of rvalue references, and a rvalue reference is not that far from a pointer.
So auto q = std::tuple<A&&,A&&>(A{100},A{200}); creates two A objects, takes (rvalue) references to them, build the tuple with the references... and destroys the temporary objects, leaving you with two dangling references
Even if it is said to be more secure than good old C and its dangling pointers, C++ still allows programmer to write wrong programs.
Anyway, the following would make sense (note usage of A& and not A&&):
int main() {
A a(100), b(100); // Ok, a and b will leave as long as main
auto q = tuple<A&, A&>(a, b); // ok, q contains references to a and b
...
return 0; // Ok, q, a and b will be destroyed
}
I followed this tutorial to start to understand the move semantics and rvalue references in C++11.
At some point, he implements these two classes with the std::move in the move constructors explaining that
we pass the temporary to a move constructor, and it takes on new life
in the new scope. In the context where the rvalue expression was
evaluated, the temporary object really is over and done with. But in
our constructor, the object has a name; it will be alive for the
entire duration of our function. In other words, we might use the
variable other more than once in the function, and the temporary
object has a defined location that truly persists for the entire
function. It's an lvalue in the true sense of the term locator value
class MetaData
{
public:
MetaData(int size, const string& name)
: _name(name)
, _size(size)
{}
MetaData(const MetaData& other)
: _name(other._name)
, _size(other._size)
{
cout << "MetaData -- Copy Constructor" << endl;
}
MetaData(MetaData&& other)
: _name(move(other._name))
, _size(other._size)
{
cout << "MetaData -- Move Constructor" << endl;
}
~MetaData()
{
_name.clear();
}
string getName() const { return _name; }
int getSize() const { return _size; }
private:
string _name;
int _size;
};
class ArrayWrapper
{
public:
ArrayWrapper()
: _p_vals(new int[64])
, _metadata(64, "ArrayWrapper")
{}
ArrayWrapper(int n)
: _p_vals(new int[n])
, _metadata(n, "ArrayWrapper")
{}
ArrayWrapper(ArrayWrapper&& other)
: _p_vals(other._p_vals)
, _metadata(move(other._metadata))
{
cout << "ArrayWrapper -- Move Constructor" << endl;
other._p_vals = nullptr;
}
ArrayWrapper(const ArrayWrapper& other)
: _p_vals(new int[other._metadata.getSize()])
, _metadata(other._metadata)
{
cout << "ArrayWrapper -- Copy Constructor" << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < _metadata.getSize(); ++i)
_p_vals[i] = other._p_vals[i];
}
~ArrayWrapper()
{
delete[] _p_vals;
}
int* getVals() const { return _p_vals; }
MetaData getMeta() const { return _metadata; }
private:
int* _p_vals;
MetaData _metadata;
};
In the ArrayWrapper move constructor I tried to change std::move with std::forward<MetaData> and the code shows that if I call the ArrayWrapper move constructor this will call the MetaData move constructor, like the example with the std::move.
Of course if I don't use either std::move or std::forward the MetaData copy costructor will be called.
The question is, in this case, is there a difference between using std::move and std::forward? Why should I use one instead of the other?
is there a difference between using std::move and std::forward? Why should I use one instead of the other?
Yes, std::move returns an rvalue reference of its parameter, while std::forward just forwards the parameter preserving its value category.
Use move when you clearly want to convert something to an rvalue. Use forward when you don't know what you've (may be an lvalue or an rvalue) and want to perfectly forward it (preserving its l or r valueness) to something. Can I typically/always use std::forward instead of std::move? is a question you might be interested in here.
In the below snippet, bar would get exactly what the caller of foo had passed, including its value category preserved:
template <class T>
void foo(T&& t) {
bar(std::forward<T>(t));
}
Don't let T&& fool you here - t is not an rvalue reference. When it appears in a type-deducing context, T&& acquires a special meaning. When foo is instantiated, T depends on whether the argument passed is an lvalue or an rvalue. If it's an lvalue of type U, T is deduced to U&. If it's an rvalue, T is deduced to U. See this excellent article for details. You need to understand about value categories and reference collapsing to understand things better in this front.
The relevant std::forward and std::move declarations are:
template< class T >
T&& forward( typename std::remove_reference<T>::type& t );
template< class T >
typename std::remove_reference<T>::type&& move( T&& t );
For the former:
std::forward<MetaData>(other._metadata);
std::forward<MetaData> returns MetaData&&.
For the latter:
std::move(other._metadata);
//argument derived as lvalue reference due to forwarding reference
std::move<MetaData&>(other._name);
std::move<MetaData&> returns typename std::remove_reference<MetaData&>::type&&, which is MetaData&&.
So the two forms are identical for your example. However, std::move is the right choice here, as it shows our intent to unconditionally move the argument. std::forward can be used to unconditionally move, but the purpose of it is to perfect-forward its argument.
In the line commented by ***, why is Bar's copy constructor called? input_bar is a rvalue reference, so I expect the move constructor to be called. Did it convert to an lvalue reference? I can make the move constructor call if I change that line to bar_(std::move(input_bar)).
#include <iostream>
#include <array>
#include <memory>
class Bar
{
public:
Bar(const Bar& bar)
{
std::cout << "copy constructor called" << std::endl;
}
Bar(Bar&& bar)
{
std::cout << "move constructor called" << std::endl;
}
};
class Foo
{
public:
Foo(Bar&& input_bar) :
bar_(input_bar) // ***
{
}
Bar bar_;
};
int main()
{
Bar bar;
Foo foo(std::move(bar));
return 0;
}
Once an entity has a name, it is clearly an lvalue! If you have a name for an rvalue reference, the entity with the name is not an rvalue but an lvalue. The entire point is that you know that this entity references an rvalue and you can legitimately move its content.
If you want to just forward the rvalueness to the next function you call, you'd use std::move(), e.g.:
Foo(Bar&& bar): bar_(std::move(bar)) {}
Without the std::move() the rvalue is considered to be owned by the constructor. With the std::move() it releases the ownership and passes it on to the next function.
You have to move rhrs:
Foo(Bar&& input_bar) :
bar_(std::move(input_bar)) // ***
{
}
The reasoning is that once we actually use the RHR, it should be semantially treated as out of scope. Forcing you to use std::move allows the following code to not be undefined:
Foo(Bar&& input_bar) {
std::cout << input_bar.baz << std::endl;//not undefined
bar_ = Bar{std::move(input_bar)};//input_bar is now essentailly destroyted
//std::cout << input_bar.baz << std::endl;//Undefined behavior, don't do this
}
The general rule of thumb is that only things without names can actually be used as RHR's...RHR as arguments have names, and thus will be treated as LHR untill you call a function on them.