Avoid calling move constructor
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I have following example
#include <cstdint>
class FooC
{
public:
FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)
: PORT(iPort)
, PIN(iPin)
{
};
~FooC() = default;
FooC() = delete;
FooC(const FooC&) = delete;
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
private:
const uint16_t PORT;
const uint16_t PIN;
};
int main()
{
FooC array[2] = {
FooC(1,2),
FooC(3,4)
};
}
and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++11)
: In function 'int main()':
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
Compiler returned: 1
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
c++ c++11 c++17
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I have following example
#include <cstdint>
class FooC
{
public:
FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)
: PORT(iPort)
, PIN(iPin)
{
};
~FooC() = default;
FooC() = delete;
FooC(const FooC&) = delete;
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
private:
const uint16_t PORT;
const uint16_t PIN;
};
int main()
{
FooC array[2] = {
FooC(1,2),
FooC(3,4)
};
}
and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++11)
: In function 'int main()':
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
Compiler returned: 1
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
c++ c++11 c++17
5
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
1
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
2
Have you tried removing the=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
1
Andconstexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I have following example
#include <cstdint>
class FooC
{
public:
FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)
: PORT(iPort)
, PIN(iPin)
{
};
~FooC() = default;
FooC() = delete;
FooC(const FooC&) = delete;
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
private:
const uint16_t PORT;
const uint16_t PIN;
};
int main()
{
FooC array[2] = {
FooC(1,2),
FooC(3,4)
};
}
and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++11)
: In function 'int main()':
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
Compiler returned: 1
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
c++ c++11 c++17
I have following example
#include <cstdint>
class FooC
{
public:
FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)
: PORT(iPort)
, PIN(iPin)
{
};
~FooC() = default;
FooC() = delete;
FooC(const FooC&) = delete;
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
private:
const uint16_t PORT;
const uint16_t PIN;
};
int main()
{
FooC array[2] = {
FooC(1,2),
FooC(3,4)
};
}
and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++11)
: In function 'int main()':
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
:28:5: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'
};
^
:16:4: note: declared here
FooC(FooC&&) = delete;
^~~~
Compiler returned: 1
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
c++ c++11 c++17
c++ c++11 c++17
asked Nov 19 at 19:11
Zlatan
1409
1409
5
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
1
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
2
Have you tried removing the=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
1
Andconstexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03
add a comment |
5
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
1
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
2
Have you tried removing the=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
1
Andconstexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03
5
5
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
1
1
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
2
2
Have you tried removing the
=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
Have you tried removing the
=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
1
1
And
constexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
And
constexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
In C++11 and C++14, you can use nested braces:
FooC array[2] = {{1,2}, {3,4}};
In C++17 your code should already work as written thanks to the new prvalue/materialization rules ("guaranteed copy elision").
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
No with your current syntax (before C++17) and yes (in C++17).
Pre-C++17:
This is not possible. The aggregate initialization copies the initializers into the aggregate. This means you have to have an accessible copy/move constructor. In C++11 you have to pass the constructor parameters as their own braced-init-list. This means you aren't copying FooC
's but instead copy-list-initializing the FooC
's in the array which calls the 2 parameter constructor instead of the copy/move constructor.
FooC array[2] = {
{1, 2},
{3, 4}
};
C++17:
You no longer have temporary objects in the braced-init-list and each element of the array will be directly initialized instead of copy initialized.
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
In C++11 and C++14, you can use nested braces:
FooC array[2] = {{1,2}, {3,4}};
In C++17 your code should already work as written thanks to the new prvalue/materialization rules ("guaranteed copy elision").
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
In C++11 and C++14, you can use nested braces:
FooC array[2] = {{1,2}, {3,4}};
In C++17 your code should already work as written thanks to the new prvalue/materialization rules ("guaranteed copy elision").
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
In C++11 and C++14, you can use nested braces:
FooC array[2] = {{1,2}, {3,4}};
In C++17 your code should already work as written thanks to the new prvalue/materialization rules ("guaranteed copy elision").
In C++11 and C++14, you can use nested braces:
FooC array[2] = {{1,2}, {3,4}};
In C++17 your code should already work as written thanks to the new prvalue/materialization rules ("guaranteed copy elision").
answered Nov 19 at 19:15
Kerrek SB
359k60675910
359k60675910
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
add a comment |
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
1
1
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
C++17 demo
– Kerrek SB
Nov 19 at 19:15
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
No with your current syntax (before C++17) and yes (in C++17).
Pre-C++17:
This is not possible. The aggregate initialization copies the initializers into the aggregate. This means you have to have an accessible copy/move constructor. In C++11 you have to pass the constructor parameters as their own braced-init-list. This means you aren't copying FooC
's but instead copy-list-initializing the FooC
's in the array which calls the 2 parameter constructor instead of the copy/move constructor.
FooC array[2] = {
{1, 2},
{3, 4}
};
C++17:
You no longer have temporary objects in the braced-init-list and each element of the array will be directly initialized instead of copy initialized.
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
No with your current syntax (before C++17) and yes (in C++17).
Pre-C++17:
This is not possible. The aggregate initialization copies the initializers into the aggregate. This means you have to have an accessible copy/move constructor. In C++11 you have to pass the constructor parameters as their own braced-init-list. This means you aren't copying FooC
's but instead copy-list-initializing the FooC
's in the array which calls the 2 parameter constructor instead of the copy/move constructor.
FooC array[2] = {
{1, 2},
{3, 4}
};
C++17:
You no longer have temporary objects in the braced-init-list and each element of the array will be directly initialized instead of copy initialized.
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
No with your current syntax (before C++17) and yes (in C++17).
Pre-C++17:
This is not possible. The aggregate initialization copies the initializers into the aggregate. This means you have to have an accessible copy/move constructor. In C++11 you have to pass the constructor parameters as their own braced-init-list. This means you aren't copying FooC
's but instead copy-list-initializing the FooC
's in the array which calls the 2 parameter constructor instead of the copy/move constructor.
FooC array[2] = {
{1, 2},
{3, 4}
};
C++17:
You no longer have temporary objects in the braced-init-list and each element of the array will be directly initialized instead of copy initialized.
Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor?
No with your current syntax (before C++17) and yes (in C++17).
Pre-C++17:
This is not possible. The aggregate initialization copies the initializers into the aggregate. This means you have to have an accessible copy/move constructor. In C++11 you have to pass the constructor parameters as their own braced-init-list. This means you aren't copying FooC
's but instead copy-list-initializing the FooC
's in the array which calls the 2 parameter constructor instead of the copy/move constructor.
FooC array[2] = {
{1, 2},
{3, 4}
};
C++17:
You no longer have temporary objects in the braced-init-list and each element of the array will be directly initialized instead of copy initialized.
edited Nov 19 at 22:14
answered Nov 19 at 19:17
NathanOliver
82.8k15112172
82.8k15112172
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
add a comment |
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
I'd be careful with the phrasing here. Your pre-C++17 example is copy-list-initializing the elements.
– T.C.
Nov 19 at 22:11
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
@T.C. Wording updated.
– NathanOliver
Nov 19 at 22:15
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53381152%2favoid-calling-move-constructor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
use C++17 :-)...
– marcinj
Nov 19 at 19:14
1
Since you've deleted default copy and move constructors (as well as assignment oprators) your class is no longer movable and copyable, when your program expecting move assignable class.
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:15
2
Have you tried removing the
=
– JVApen
Nov 19 at 19:17
1
And
constexpr FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin) noexcept
– Victor Gubin
Nov 19 at 19:22
Note that you don't need to delete the move-constructor: when you delete the copy-constructor, the move-constructor is not implicitly generated
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:03