I have a simple question:
class my
{
};
my ob;
Compiler allows me to create an object which makes sense. And, I am aware that you can't create object where the constructor is private.
To me it looks that, everything inside the class is private but obviously not the default constructor(because it is allowing me to create the object as default constructor should be public). But what confuses me is that there is no public section in the class.
So, does it create a public section only to put a default constructor under it in this case?
Or there is something else going on and my rationale is incorrect?
Also, how are accesses public, private and protected internally organised/tracked when an object is created/accessed?
I got this question as I never created an object of an empty class until now.
If you do not declare any constructor yourself, C++ compilers will always generate a public trivial constructor for you. More than that even, it will also implicitly create a public copy constructor and assignment operator.
From C++11 standard 12.1.5:
If
there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared
as defaulted. An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
and 12.8.7, 12.8.11:
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. [...] An implicitly-declared copy [...] constructor is an inline public member of its class.
and finally 12.8.18, 12.8.20, 12.8.22:
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy assignment operator, one is declared implicitly. [...] If the definition of a class X does not explicitly declare a move assignment operator, one will be implicitly
declared [...]. An implicitly-declared
copy/move assignment operator is an inline public member of its class.
Note that a move assignment operator will only be generated under certain circumstances, which are beyond the scope of this question, see 12.8.20 for more details.
If you want a private constructor you have to declare it yourself:
class my { my() {} };
If you want to prevent the generation of copy constructor or assignment operator you can either declare, but not implement them:
class my { my(my const &); };
Or, since C++11, explicitly delete them:
class my { my(my const &) = delete; };
Yes, the compiler will produce the default constructor and the default copy constructor and default assignment operators as "public" - because anything else would make the class rather useless...
Of course, those constructors would be rather simple - in fact, it can be replaced with "nothing", since constructing an empty class will do nothing.
The compiler generated default constructor (and other operators) are automatically public. If you want the default constructor to be private then you need to specify this yourself my declaring it within a private section of your class.
The concepts of private, protected and public are only relevant to the compiler. They have no meaning and are not tracked at runtime.
The compiler will generate the default constructor as inline public if it is not defined by the user, the relevant section of the C++ draft standard is 12.1/5:
If there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted (8.4). An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
Usually compiler by default generates 4 things at the time of creation of object.
Default constructor
Copy constructor
Copy assignment operator
Destructor
For example:
class First {
First(){} //default constructor
First(const First &){} //copy constructor
First& operator=(const First&){ //Copy assignment operator
return *this;
}
~First(){} //Destructor
}
These are implicitly inline public member, unless there is no user declared constructor.
Related
When we don't define any constructors, the compiler synthesizes a default constructor for us. And the compiler will always synthesize the copy constructor, copy assignment and destructor if we don't define them ourselves. I want to know if the synthesized copy control members are always public? Or is there any way to control the access of these synthesized members?
Edit: To clarify, I want to know what the default access are for these members if I don't declare them at all.
Yes, you can get the synthesized special functions, but with different access controls:
class Foo {
private:
Foo() = default;
};
Since it's still declared private, it's not public, but you don't need to define it.
They should be public
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_constructor
If no user-defined copy constructors are provided for a class type (struct, class, or union), the compiler will always declare a copy constructor as a non-explicit inline public member of its class
The old way of blocking these member functions from being available for use was to declare them private yourself. Now you can just set the member functions equal to delete:
Example& operator = (const Example& rhs) = delete;
I'm running a static analysis tool and getting an error because an abstract class, with no data members, has no constructors.
Given an abstract class with no data members:
class My_Interface
{
public:
virtual void interface_function(void) = 0;
};
Are any constructors generated by the compiler?
If a constructor is generated, what would it's content be?
If a constructor is generated, would it be eliminated by an
optimization level?
The rule documentation in the static analysis says:
If you do not write at least one constructor in a class, the compiler will
write a public constructor for you by default. This rule detects if you
do not declare at least one constructor.
The rule documentation references Scott Meyers, "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve your Programs and Design", third edition.
My understanding is that the compiler will not generate constructors for the above case.
Edit 1:
This is not a duplicate of many constructor questions because:
This one has no data members.
This is not asking if a constructor is necessary, but what happens
when a constructor is not provided.
This is C++ language.
The compiler at least theoretically synthesizes a constructor even in this case. Even though you can't create an instance of this class, the constructor will be invoked in the process of creating a derived class (that overrides interface_function, so it can be instantiated).
Given that this is basically a pure interface class, the constructor probably won't do anything, so most compilers will probably optimize it out (quite possibly even when you don't tell it to optimize the code).
Are any constructors generated by the compiler?
Yes. Several. First, from [class.ctor]:
A default constructor for a class X is a constructor of class X that either has no parameters or else each
parameter that is not a function parameter pack has a default argument. If there is no user-declared constructor
for class X, a non-explicit constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared as defaulted (8.4).
An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class. A defaulted default
constructor for class X is defined as deleted if:
Several bullet points follow, none of which apply. So we have the equivalent of:
My_Interface() = default;
Then, from [class.copy]:
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, a non-explicit one is declared implicitly. If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment operator, the implicitly declared copy
constructor is defined as deleted; otherwise, it is defined as defaulted (8.4).
So we have:
My_Interface(const My_Interface&) = default;
Also:
If the definition of a class X does not explicitly declare a move constructor, a non-explicit one will be implicitly
declared as defaulted if and only if
(9.1) — X does not have a user-declared copy constructor,
(9.2) — X does not have a user-declared copy assignment operator,
(9.3) — X does not have a user-declared move assignment operator, and
(9.4) — X does not have a user-declared destructor.
So we also have:
My_Interface(My_Interface&& ) = default;
If a constructor is generated, what would it's content be?
All three are generated, all three are = default;
If a constructor is generated, would it be eliminated by an optimization level?
None of the three constructors are trivial because My_Interface has a virtual function. As such, at the very least, the vtable will need to be initialized/copied. So something will have to happen, even if there aren't any members to initialize/copy/move.
Q1. Are any constructors generated by the compiler?
Answer: Yes. From the C++11 Standard:
12.1 Constructors
5 A default constructor for a class X is a constructor of class X that can be called without an argument. If
there is no user-declared constructor for class X, a constructor having no parameters is implicitly declared
as defaulted (8.4). An implicitly-declared default constructor is an inline public member of its class.
I don't see anything in the standard that answers the other two questions. However, in your case, since there is a virtual member function, the default constructor must, at least, set the virtual table of the object.
In C++, if we have this class
class Uncopyable{
public:
Uncopyable(){}
~Uncopyable(){}
private:
Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&);
Uncopyable& operator=(const Uncopyable&);
};
and then we have a derived class
class Dervied: private Uncopyable{
};
My question is: why won't this generate a compile time error when the compiler generates the default copy constructor and assignment operators in the derived class ? Won't the generated code try to access base class private members ?
C++11 12.8/7 states "If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly." so Dervied has an implicitly declared copy constructor. 12.8/11 says:
An implicitly-declared copy/move constructor is an inline public member of its class. A defaulted copy/move constructor for a class X is defined as deleted (8.4.3) if X has:
a variant member with a non-trivial corresponding constructor and X is a union-like class,
a non-static data member of class type M (or array thereof) that cannot be copied/moved because overload resolution (13.3), as applied to M’s corresponding constructor, results in an ambiguity or a function that is deleted or inaccessible from the defaulted constructor,
a direct or virtual base class B that cannot be copied/moved because overload resolution (13.3), as applied to B’s corresponding constructor, results in an ambiguity or a function that is deleted or inaccessible from the defaulted constructor,
any direct or virtual base class or non-static data member of a type with a destructor that is deleted or inaccessible from the defaulted constructor,
for the copy constructor, a non-static data member of rvalue reference type, or
for the move constructor, a non-static data member or direct or virtual base class with a type that does not have a move constructor and is not trivially copyable.
Specifically, the third bullet applies: Dervied has a direct base class Uncopyable that cannot be copied because overload resolution results in a function that is inaccessible from Dervied::Dervied(const Dervied&). As a result Dervied's implicitly declared copy constructor is declared as deleted, resulting in a compile time error if and only if that copy constructor is called.
why won't this generate a compile time error when the compiler generates the default copy constructor and assignment operators in the derived class ?
Because the compiler generates them only when they are needed by the code being compiled. Write some code using the derived class where the copy constructor and/or assignment operator are involved, and you will see the compile-time error you are looking for.
The private in the inheritance makes them private to Derived, it can still see them, classes that use Derived can't.
The derived class will inherit the private copy constructor but will not need to use it unless you copy an object of derived type, as in this example.
The compiler does not auto-generate constructors/operators unless they are used and no other constructor/operator can be used to do that operation (i.e. a copy operation can be used in some situations where a move operation would suffice). The latter statement results in the following set of rules.
Here are the rules to the auto-generation of certain member functions:
Default constructor (if no other constructor is explicitly declared)
Copy constructor if no move constructor or move assignment operator
is explicitly declared. If a destructor is declared generation of a
copy constructor is deprecated.
Move constructor if no copy
constructor, move assignment operator or destructor is explicitly
declared.
Copy assignment operator if no move constructor or move assignment
operator is explicitly declared. If a destructor is declared
generation of a copy assignment operator is deprecated.
Move assignment operator if no copy constructor, copy assignment operator
or destructor is explicitly declared.
Destructor
The list is taken from this Wikipedia page.
One class cannot call private methods on another class, but it can inherit as much as it is coded too. This code just includes the member functions from Uncopyable in Derived.
Imagine if you wrote a class inheriting from std::vector. You can still erase, insert, push_back and do all those sorts of things. Because these are all public or protected vector member functions, they in turn call implementation specific private functions that do the low level things like manage memory. Your code in this derived class couldn't call those memory management functions directly though. This is used to insure the creators of the vector can change the internal details freely without breaking your use of the class.
If your example is what the code actually looks like, then this it is a common pattern used to make things that cannot be copied. It would make code like the following produce a compiler error:
Derived Foo;
Derived Bar;
Foo = Bar
It would also make the code throw an error on the following:
int GetAnswer(Derived bar)
{ /* Do something with a Derived */ }
Derived Foo;
int answer = GetAnser(Foo);
This example fails because a copy of foo is made and passed as the parameter in the function GetAnswer.
There are many reasons why something might not be copyable. The most common I have experienced is that the object manages some low level resource a single file, an opengl context, an audio output, etc... Imagine if you had a class that managed a log file. If it closed the file in the deconstructor, what happens to the original when a copy is destroyed.
Edit: to pass an Uncopyable class to a function, pass it by reference. The Following function does not make a copy:
int GetAnswer(Derived& bar)
{ /* Do something with a Derived */ }
Derived Foo;
int answer = GetAnser(Foo);
It would also cause a compiler error if all the constructor were private and the class was instantiated. But even if all the member function even constructors were private and the class was never instantiated that would be valid compiling code.
Edit: The reason a class with constructor is that there maybe other way to construct it or it maybe have static member functions, or class functions.
Sometimes factories are used to build object which have no obvious constructor. These might have functions to whatever magic is required to make the umakeable class instance. The most common I have seen is just that there was another constructor that was public, but not in an obvious place. I have also seen factories as friend classes to the unconstructable class so they could call the constructors and I have seen code manually twiddle bits of memory and cast pointers to the memory it to an instance of a class. All of these patterns are used to insure that a class is correctly created beyond just the guarantees C++ supplies.
A more common pattern I have seen is static member functions in classes.
class uncreateable
{
uncreateable() {}
public:
static int GetImportantAnswer();
};
Looking at this it can be seen that not only do I not need to create a instance of the class to call GetImportantAnswer() but I couldn't create an instance if I wanted. I could call this code using the following:
int answer;
answer = uncreateable::GetImportantAnswer();
Edit: Spelling and grammar
Well, actually this program does not compile with g++:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Uncopyable{
public:
Uncopyable(){}
~Uncopyable(){}
private:
Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&) {cout<<"in parent copy constructor";}
Uncopyable& operator=(const Uncopyable&) { cout << "in parent assignment operator";}
};
class Derived: private Uncopyable{
};
int main() {
Derived a;
Derived b = a;
}
compiler output:
$ g++ 23183322.cpp
23183322.cpp:10:88: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
Uncopyable& operator=(const Uncopyable&) { cout << "in parent assignment operator";}
^
23183322.cpp:13:7: error: base class 'Uncopyable' has private copy constructor
class Derived: private Uncopyable{
^
23183322.cpp:9:5: note: declared private here
Uncopyable(const Uncopyable&) {cout<<"in parent copy constructor";}
^
23183322.cpp:19:15: note: implicit copy constructor for 'Derived' first required here
Derived b = a;
^
1 warning and 1 error generated.
This question already has answers here:
Conditions for automatic generation of default/copy/move ctor and copy/move assignment operator?
(3 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
As per "Inside C++ Object Model" a copy constructor is generated (if not declared by the programmer) by the compiler only when at least any one of the below four conditions are true:
When the class contains a member object of a class for which a copy constructor exists (either explicitly declared by the class designer, as in the case of the previous String class, or synthesized by the compiler, as in the case of class Word)
When the class is derived from a base class for which a copy constructor exists (again, either explicitly declared or synthesized)
When the class declares one or more virtual functions
When the class is derived from an inheritance chain in which one or more base classes are virtual
Which means if I have a class with just constructor then copy constructor will not be provided by the compiler.
Lets take an example:
class test
{
test(){}
};
int main()
{
test obj1; //statement 1
test obj2(obj1); //statement 2
}
Above code works fine. Now the problem comes when I add the following lines in class test:
test(const test& rhs) = delete;
"= delete" ensures that copy constructor is not automatically provided. After adding above line I am getting an error for statement 2 which says Use of deleted function test::test(const test&).
My question is: as per "Inside C++ Object Model" I don't need a copy constructor for the above class so when I am explicitly saying not to generate a copy constructor (using delete) why am I getting an error? Since I was expecting that the compiler won't need a copy constructor for the above class.
I am using gcc version 4.6.3.
For class to be copyable, it needs to have a copy constructor. Whether you write your own, or compiler generates one for you, it doesn't matter — it has to be available for test a; test b(a); to be a valid operation.
You explicitly force compiler to delete the copy constructor — this is new version of old "make copy constructor private" trick. It disallows copying. So don't be surprised that you can't copy. Because you told the compiler to not allow it.
The standard word on implicitly generated copy constructors is [class.copy]/7:
If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment operator, the implicitly declared copy constructor is defined as deleted; otherwise, it is defined as defaulted (8.4). The latter case is deprecated if the class has a user-declared copy assignment operator or a user-declared destructor.
and [class.copy]/13:
A copy/move constructor that is defaulted and not defined as deleted is implicitly defined if it is odr-used (3.2) or when it is explicitly defaulted after its first declaration. [Note:The copy/move constructor is implicitly defined even if the implementation elided its odr-use (3.2, 12.2). —end note] If the implicitly-defined constructor would satisfy the requirements of a constexpr constructor (7.1.5), the implicitly-defined constructor isconstexpr.
So a copy-constructor is still generated for test, and its getting invoked by statement 2. I would believe that "Inside C++ Object Model" is talking about when a copy-constructor isn't trivial.
This line:
test obj2(obj1)
is trying to call the copy constructor.
Am I doing this right? This is a highly simplified version of my code:
class Logger {
public:
Logger(std::ostream) { /*...*/}
};
class Driver {
public:
Driver() : m_logger(std::cout) {}
Driver(Logger& logger) : m_logger(logger) {}
private
Logger m_logger;
};
So my class Driver has a member of type Logger. When I call the argument-less constructor Driver(), the instance of Driver creates its own instance of Logger using std::cout.
When calling Driver(Logger) the instance shall use an already existing instance of Logger passed as a reference.
The above code compiles using g++. Although I understand what happens when calling Driver(), I don't get what happens when calling Driver(Logger). Logger has no constructor which accepts a reference on Logger as argument ("copy constructor"). So what is executed when calling Driver(Logger)?
A trivial copy constructor for Logger is synthesised for you, unless you declare one yourself.
This is much the same as how a trivial default constructor is synthesised for you (if you don't declare a default user-defined constructor).
[C++11: 12.8/7]: If the class definition does not explicitly declare a copy constructor, one is declared implicitly. If the class definition declares a move constructor or move assignment operator, the implicitly declared copy constructor
is defined as deleted; otherwise, it is defined as defaulted (8.4). The latter case is deprecated if the class has a user-declared copy assignment operator or a user-declared destructor. Thus, for the class definition
struct X {
X(const X&, int);
};
a copy constructor is implicitly-declared. If the user-declared constructor is later defined as
X::X(const X& x, int i =0) { /* ... */ }
then any use of X’s copy constructor is ill-formed because of the ambiguity; no diagnostic is required.
[C++11: 12.8/8]: The implicitly-declared copy constructor for a class X will have the form
X::X(const X&)
if
each direct or virtual base class B of X has a copy constructor whose first parameter is of type const B& or const volatile B&, and
for all the non-static data members of X that are of a class type M (or array thereof), each such class type has a copy constructor whose first parameter is of type const M& or const volatile M&.
Otherwise, the implicitly-declared copy constructor will have the form
X::X(X&)
When you construct a Driver with a Logger argument, it is taken by reference and the Logger copy constructor is invoked to initialize m_logger, so you end up with a new Logger that is a copy of the argument. The copy constructor is provided by the compiler unless you explicitly make Logger non-copyable, by declaring the copy constructor private.
Seems perfectly valid, except that you should make the logger argument a const reference; you're going to copy it, after all, not modify it.