#include <iostream>
class A
{
public:
A() : m_i(0) { }
protected:
int m_i;
};
class B
{
public:
B() : m_d(0.0) { }
protected:
double m_d;
};
class C
: public A
, public B
{
public:
C() : m_c('a') { }
private:
char m_c;
};
int main()
{
C c;
A *pa = &c;
B *pb = &c;
const int x = (pa == &c) ? 1 : 2;
const int y = (pb == &c) ? 3 : 4;
const int z = (reinterpret_cast<char*>(pa) == reinterpret_cast<char*>(pb)) ? 5 : 6;
std::cout << x << y << z << std::endl;
return 0;
}
This code prints out 136 which would suggest that the first equality was true, second also but not the third. Since pa and pb are both set to &c the first two would make sense but then why would the third equality be false?
I ran this code in Visual C++ 2012 and used debugger to check the addresses:
pa == 0x003bfc90
pb == 0x003bfc98
&c == 0x003bfc90
Apparently, pa and pb don't point to the same address which would mean that the third equality should be false (and it is). But then why are the first two true? Could you explain to me what is going on here?
The two pointers do indeed have different values since they point to different sub-objects of c; these two objects must exist at different locations.
Without reinterpret_cast, the equality comparison first looks for a suitable conversion to the same pointer type. This converts &c from C* to B* by modifying the pointer value to point to the B sub-object of c - exactly the same conversion that was applied when initialising pb. After that conversion, both pointers have the same value, and so compare equal.
reinterpret_cast means that the pointer should be converted to the target type without modifying its value, whether or not that conversion is meaningful. So, after that conversion, the pointers still have different values, and compare not equal.
Related
Suppose a class C has two members, M1 and M2, where M1 holds a pointer P that refers to M2.
For every instance X of C the following invariant should hold: X.M1.P points to X.M2.
Is there an idiomatic way to implement this behaviour in C++ without having to implement a move constructor and assignment operator?
I'm asking because it seems to me that conceptually the pointer P should be relative to M1. Non-default move constructors and assignment operators seem like lots of work (especially if there are a few members) for this simple concept.
My specific use-case is similar to the example below (where set is M1, and less is M2). Perhaps my fundamental approach is flawed — is there a better way than having a pointer to Relation in Less?
using Relation = std::vector<std::vector<bool>>;
class C {
public:
C() { /* less = ...; */ }
C(C&&) = default;
C& operator=(C&&) = default;
private:
struct Less {
explicit Less(const Relation* r) : r(r) {}
bool operator()(int i, int j) { return (*r)[i][j]; }
const Relation* r;
};
Relation less;
std::set<int, Less> set{Less(&less)};
};
C a;
std::cout << a.set.key_comp().r == &a.less << std::endl; // true
C b = std::move(a);
std::cout << b.set.key_comp().r == &b.less << std::endl; // false
I am trying to figure out the best way to prevent integer 0 from being implicitly cast to nullptr_t and then passed to constructors that take pointers. Explicit doesn't do it, but I can get nullptr_t to cause an ambiguous overload error:
#include <typeinfo.h>
struct A {
explicit A(char*) { }
};
struct B {
B(nullptr_t a) = delete;
B(char*) { }
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
A a(0); // darnit I compiled...
B b1(0); // good, fails, but with only b/c ambiguous
B b2((char*)0); // good, succeeds
B b3(1); // good, fails, with correct error
}
Is there a better way than this? Also, what exactly is delete accomplishing here?
Deleting A(int) will not prevent A(char *) being called with
nullptr. So you will need to delete A(nullptr_t) as well.
And even this will not protect you from the eventuality that
there is some rogue class in the neighbourhood that is
implicitly constructible from 0 or nullptr and
implicitly converts same to char *.
#include <iostream>
struct A {
A(int) = delete;
A(std::nullptr_t) = delete;
explicit A(char * p) {
std::cout << "Constructed with p = " << (void *)p << std::endl;
}
};
struct X
{
X(long i) : _i(i) {}
operator char *() const { return (char *)_i; }
long _i;
};
int main()
{
X x(0);
A a(x);
return 0;
}
The program prints:
Constructed with p = 0
You may reckon that possibility remote enough to be ignored;
or you might prefer to delete all constructors,
in one fell swoop, whose argument is not precisely of a type
that you sanction. E.g. assuming the sanctioned types are just char *:
struct A {
template<typename T>
A(T) = delete;
explicit A(char * p) {}
};
struct X
{
X(long i) : _i(i) {}
operator char *() const { return (char *)_i; }
long _i;
};
int main()
{
// A a0(0);
//A a1(nullptr);
X x(0);
// A a2(x);
char *p = x;
A a3(p); // OK
return 0;
}
Here all of the commented out constructor calls fail to compile.
If you want to stop your constructor from taking 0, one option would be to delete B(int):
B(int) = delete;
That's an unambiguously better match for B(0) than the constructor that takes a char *.
Note that up until C++11, NULL was specified as being of integer type, and even in C++11 and later, it's still likely implemented as #define NULL 0. B(NULL) won't work if you do this. B(nullptr) will work, but still, I'd be wary of whether this is worth doing.
I saw an online C++ test regarding the constructor. I can figure out most of the answers but am puzzled by some in the following. Hope someone can help me out.
Here's the example.
#include <iostream>
class A {
public:
A(int n = 0) : m_n(n) {
std::cout << 'd';
}
A(const A& a) : m_n(a.m_n) {
std::cout << 'c';
}
private:
int m_n;
};
void f(const A &a1, const A &a2 = A())
{
}
int main() {
A a(2), b;
const A c(a), &d = c, e = b;
b = d;
A *p = new A(c), *q = &a;
static_cast<void>(q);
delete p;
f(3);
std::cout << std::endl;
return 0;
}
What I don't really get is why "&d = c" doesn't output anything. Also adding another overloading constructor like A(const A *a) : m_n(a->m_n) { std::cout << 'b'; } doesn't output anything either for *q = &a. So what can I do to make it work?
Many thanks for any advice. I am very curious about this.
There's no output for these because d and q are not of type A, i.e. they are not A objects. d is a reference to A and q is a pointer to A. Initialising a reference and initialising or assigning a pointer does not manipulate the referred-to/pointed-to A object at all, hence no output.
To address your question - there is nothing to "make work," it works just as it should.
That to be more clear I will rewrite this statement
const A c(a), &d = c, e = b;
as
const A c(a);
const A &d = c;
Here d is declared as a reference to an object of type A. It does not create a new object. It refers to an object that is already created. In this case d referes to c. In fact d is simply an alias for object c.
This code snippet
A *p = new A(c), *q = &a;
also can be rewritten for simplicity
A *q = &a;
In this statement pointer q is simply assigned by the address of a. Neither object is created. Simply q now points to already created early object a.
&d = c doesn't output anything because you're not calling the constructor.
If we expand that code fragment a bit...
A &d = c
What your code is saying there is "declare d to be a reference to an object of type A, which points to c". Because you're creating a reference, you're not calling the constructor, c and d are the same object.
The same applies to q, but instead of creating a reference, you're creating a pointer and assigning it the address of an existing instance of type A. The constructor isn't called because you're not creating a separate object, you're linking to an existing one.
Consider the sample code below:
class A
{
public:
A() : n(0) {}
int n;
};
class B
{
public:
B(A* a) : mA(a) { }
B(const A* a) : mConstA(a) { }
union {
A* mA;
const A* mConstA;
};
};
int main()
{
A a;
B b1(&a);
B b2(const_cast<const A*>(&a));
return 0;
}
At construction, b1 would have a mutable pointer to a, while b2 would have an immutable pointer to a. In this scenario, b1.mA equals b2.mConstA, and b1.mConstA equals b2.mA.
Are these equalities always true when you have a union of const and non-const object pointers?
Similarly, the code below compiles/runs fine:
int main()
{
const A a;
B b(&a);
b.mA->n = 3; // Blasphemy!!!
return 0;
}
But is it guaranteed for b.mA to always be equal to b.mConstA?
Are these equalities always true when you have a union of const and non-const members?
Yes, both pointers will refer to the same object in the same address. The bits in memory will be the same.
But is it guaranteed for b.mA to always be equal to b.mConstA?
Yes, their values will be the same, but that does not mean that you can really use it. This is equivalent to using const_cast, you will get a non-const pointer to the object, but if the object is really const, using that pointer to modify the object is undefined behavior.
I'm pretty new to C++ and as an exercise (and perhaps eventually .Net utility) I'm doing a pointer wrapper (actually in C++/CLI, but this applies to C++ as well). This pointer wrapper (called Apont) currently behaves just like a pointer would, as the test below can show, if lines marked 1. and 2. are commented out:
int main(array<System::String ^> ^args)
{
double ia = 10; double ip = 10;
double *p = &ip; // pointer analogy
Apont<double> ^a =
gcnew Apont<double>(ia); // equivalent to what's below, without errors
a = ~ia;/* 1. IntelliSense: expression must have integral or unscoped enum type
error C2440: '=' : cannot convert from 'double' to 'Utilidades::ComNativos::Apont<T> ^'
error C2171: '~' : illegal on operands of type 'double'*/
Console::WriteLine("ip = {0}; *p = {1}; ia = {2}; !a = {3}", ip, *p, ia, !a);
ia = 20; ip = 20;
Console::WriteLine("ip = {0}; *p = {1}; ia = {2}; !a = {3}", ip, *p, ia, !a);
*p = 30; // pointer analogy
a->Valor = 30; // does exacly what's below, without errors
!a = 30;/* 2. IntelliSense: expression must be a modifiable lvalue
error C2106: '=' : left operand must be l-value */
Console::WriteLine("ip = {0}; *p = {1}; ia = {2}; !a = {3}", ip, *p, ia, !a);
//a->Dispose();
Console::ReadKey();
p = nullptr;
return 0;
}
There are two things I don't like here, marked with 1. and 2. in the code comments, before the lines with errors. The operator~ (see 1.) is defined outside Apont, below:
template<typename T> static Apont<T>^% operator ~(T& valor)
{
return gcnew Apont<T>(valor);
}
I think this one has to be defined outside Apont, but I'm not sure. I cannot understand very well the errors it produces (these are, of course, in the use, not in the definition).
To set the value to which the instance of Apont refers I must use a property (the line marked 2. doesn't work, with errors in the setting usage only), Apont::Valor, which is the equivalent to use *p. What I'd like to do is as I use *p to get or set the value it points to, use !a with the same effect on Apont. Here's Apont::operator!()'s current definition:
T operator !()
{
return Valor;
}
As you can see in 2. (comment in the code, before the respective errors), it doesn't work for setting a value. Maybe I should return a reference? Make another operator with the same name, perhaps outside the class? I tried several options, however, I got similar errors, and came out more confused.
The question is: how can I make an operator that behaves like & (in this case, ~) and one that behaves like * (in this case, !, for dereference, but that behaves like Apont::Valor, whose old definition you can see below)?
property T Valor
{
T get()
{
if (pointer != nullptr)
return *pointer;
else if (eliminado && ErroSeEliminado) // means "disposed && ErrorIfDisposed"
throw gcnew ObjectDisposedException("O objeto já foi pelo menos parcialmente eliminadao.");
else if (ErroSeNulo) // means "ErrorIfNull"
throw gcnew NullReferenceException();
else
return 0;
// don't worry, this is not default behavior, it is returned only if you want to ignore all errors and if the pointer is null
}
void set(T valor)
{
*pointer = valor;
}
}
Let me recap in a new answer for clarity.
Solving the ! operator is easy, as I said in my previous answer, just add a reference.
So for the operator ~, the goal was to have it behave like the & operator and call the constructor of the pointer wrapper class.
I don't think that is possible. It is certainly possible for user defined objects, but I don't think it is possible to overload unary operators for builtin types. So there are three solutions depending on what you prefer:
The first one does exactly what you want, but will break for primitive types:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A {
T* payload;
A()
: payload(NULL){}
A(T *ptr)
: payload(ptr) {}
T& operator !(){
return *payload;
}
};
// this will not work for primary types
template<typename T>
A<T> operator ~(T &b){
return A<T>(&b);
}
struct B{
int test;
};
int main(){
B b; b.test = 4;
A<B> a;
a = ~b; // I think this is what you want
std::cerr << (!a).test << std::endl;
// this does not work
//int i = 4;
//A<int> a;
//a = ~i;
}
Second solution: use a compound assignment operator. Pros are the side effects are minimal, cons is this is not very intuitive and might break the nice design you had in mind.
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A {
T* payload;
A() : payload(NULL){}
T& operator !(){
return *payload;
}
};
template<typename T>
A<T>& operator &=(A<T> &a, T& b){ // should be friend of the above
a.payload = &b;
return a;
}
int main(){
int i = 3;
A<int> a;
a &= i;
std::cerr << !a << std::endl;
}
Third solution: overload the basic assignment operator. This is more intuitive to write but has a lot of side effects:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A {
T* payload;
A() : payload(NULL){}
T& operator !(){
return *payload;
}
A<T>& operator = (T & b) {
payload = &b;
return *this;
}
};
int main(){
int i = 3;
A<int> a;
a = i;
std::cerr << !a << std::endl;
}
Someone might have a solution to hijack the operators for primitive types, but i can't think of any simple solution.
If i understood your code correctly, you want the operator ~ to return a copy of the pointer wrapper and the operator ! to act as dereference?
In this case, you can define the unary operator ~ inside the Apont class which calls a copy constructor. And the operator ! has to return a reference indeed if you want to asign a value.
I think the following c++ code defines what you want to do (I renamed Apont to A):
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A {
T* payload;
A(T *ptr)
:payload(ptr) {}
A(const A&other)
:payload(other.payload) {}
T& operator !(){
return *payload;
}
T* operator ~(){
return payload;
}
};
int main(){
#define PRINT(X) std::cerr << #X << " = " << X << std::endl
int i = 0;
PRINT(i);
A<int> a(&i);
!a = 1;
PRINT(i);
A<int> b = ~a;
!b = 2;
PRINT(i);
}
The output of the code above is:
i = 0
i = 1
i = 2
According to your comments, you said you wanted the operator ! to behave exactly like the wrapped pointer. You can do so, but then the syntax changes and you need to dereference it to assign a new value (because it is a pointer...). ie something like:
#include <iostream>
template<typename T>
struct A {
T* payload;
A(T *ptr): payload(ptr) {}
// this now behaves like accessing the wrapped pointer directly
T*& operator !(){
return payload;
}
};
int main(){
#define PRINT(X) std::cerr << #X << " = " << X << std::endl
int i = 0;
int j = 999;
PRINT(i);
A<int> a(&i);
*(!a) = 1; // note the change of syntax here
PRINT(*!a); // and here
!a = &j; // but now you can change the wrapped pointer through the operator
PRINT(*!a);
}