temporaries

Binding temporary to const reference in c'tor initializer list

扶醉桌前 提交于 2020-01-01 08:13:09
问题 Section 12.2.5 in C++03 says " A temporary bound to a reference member in a constructor’s ctor-initializer (12.6.2) persists until the constructor exits " So I tried following program #include<iostream> using namespace std; struct foo { foo() { cout<<"foo c'tor"<<endl; } ~foo() { cout<<"foo d'tor"<<endl; } }; struct bar { const foo &ref; bar():ref(foo()) { cout<<"bar c'tor"<<endl; } }; int main() { bar obj; } The output I get is : foo c'tor foo d'tor bar c'tor Now according to standard,

copy constructor,destructor and temporaries

痞子三分冷 提交于 2019-12-25 04:29:10
问题 I wrote this class to test the behaviour of the default constructor,the copy constructor, the assignment operator and the destructor: #include <iostream> class Test { public: Test(); Test(const Test&); ~Test(); Test &operator=(const Test&); private: static int count; int label; }; Test::Test() : label(count++) { std::cout<<"constructor of "<<label<<std::endl; } Test::Test(const Test &other) : label(count++) { std::cout<<"copy-constructor of "<<label<<std::endl; } Test::~Test() { std::cout<<

How does the compiler determine the needed stack size for a function with compiler generated temporaries?

≯℡__Kan透↙ 提交于 2019-12-22 08:55:52
问题 Consider following code: class cFoo { private: int m1; char m2; public: int doSomething1(); int doSomething2(); int doSomething3(); } class cBar { private: cFoo mFoo; public: cFoo getFoo(){ return mFoo; } } void some_function_in_the_callstack_hierarchy(cBar aBar) { int test1 = aBar.getFoo().doSomething1(); int test2 = aBar.getFoo().doSomething2(); ... } In the line where getFoo() is called the compiler will generate a temporary object of cFoo, to be able to call doSomething1(). Does the

cast from Eigen::CwiseBinaryOp to MatrixXd causes segfault

烂漫一生 提交于 2019-12-11 19:40:06
问题 I am writing a library that stores Eigen expression templates as member variables to do the complicated calculations it needs to do. However, it seems like I'm not able to store or return these expression templates unless they are directly converted in MatrixXd or alike. This forces every step to be saved to a temporary, and ruins the efficiency of the whole design. Here's a short example that causes the trouble. Holder just holds an Eigen matrix, and Summer takes two holders and outputs the

Working around the C++ limitation on non-const references to temporaries

好久不见. 提交于 2019-12-07 14:23:13
问题 I've got a C++ data-structure that is a required "scratchpad" for other computations. It's not long-lived, and it's not frequently used so not performance critical. However, it includes a random number generator amongst other updatable tracking fields, and while the actual value of the generator isn't important, it is important that the value is updated rather than copied and reused. This means that in general, objects of this class are passed by reference. If an instance is only needed once,

Working around the C++ limitation on non-const references to temporaries

若如初见. 提交于 2019-12-06 04:16:07
I've got a C++ data-structure that is a required "scratchpad" for other computations. It's not long-lived, and it's not frequently used so not performance critical. However, it includes a random number generator amongst other updatable tracking fields, and while the actual value of the generator isn't important, it is important that the value is updated rather than copied and reused. This means that in general, objects of this class are passed by reference. If an instance is only needed once, the most natural approach is to construct them whereever needed (perhaps using a factory method or a

How does the compiler determine the needed stack size for a function with compiler generated temporaries?

浪尽此生 提交于 2019-12-05 17:38:14
Consider following code: class cFoo { private: int m1; char m2; public: int doSomething1(); int doSomething2(); int doSomething3(); } class cBar { private: cFoo mFoo; public: cFoo getFoo(){ return mFoo; } } void some_function_in_the_callstack_hierarchy(cBar aBar) { int test1 = aBar.getFoo().doSomething1(); int test2 = aBar.getFoo().doSomething2(); ... } In the line where getFoo() is called the compiler will generate a temporary object of cFoo, to be able to call doSomething1(). Does the compiler reuse the stack memory which is used for these temporary objects? How many stack memory will the

Binding temporary to const reference in c'tor initializer list

元气小坏坏 提交于 2019-12-04 01:05:40
Section 12.2.5 in C++03 says " A temporary bound to a reference member in a constructor’s ctor-initializer (12.6.2) persists until the constructor exits " So I tried following program #include<iostream> using namespace std; struct foo { foo() { cout<<"foo c'tor"<<endl; } ~foo() { cout<<"foo d'tor"<<endl; } }; struct bar { const foo &ref; bar():ref(foo()) { cout<<"bar c'tor"<<endl; } }; int main() { bar obj; } The output I get is : foo c'tor foo d'tor bar c'tor Now according to standard, temporary generated by foo() in c'tor init-list of bar's c'tor will be destroyed after bar's c'tor so foo d

C++ Copy constructor, temporaries and copy semantics

匆匆过客 提交于 2019-11-30 07:08:07
问题 For this program #include <iostream> using std::cout; struct C { C() { cout << "Default C called!\n"; } C(const C &rhs) { cout << "CC called!\n"; } }; const C f() { cout << "Entered f()!\n"; return C(); } int main() { C a = f(); C b = a; return 0; } the output I get is: Entered f()! Default C called! CC called! Since f() is returning by value, it should return a temporary. As T a = x; is T a(x); , wouldn't it call the copy constructor for the construction of a , with the temporary passed-in

Why is there no gcc/g++ warning for unused temporaries?

二次信任 提交于 2019-11-28 00:07:52
问题 Consider the following code : void ListenerImpl::attach(boost::shared_ptr<ISubscriber> subscriber) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>(mtx); subscribers.push_back(subscriber); } void ListenerImpl::notify(MsgPtr msg) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>(mtx); //notify all subscribers BOOST_FOREACH(boost::shared_ptr<ISubscriber> subscriber, subscribers){ subscriber->update(msg); } } (This is an implementation of an observer pattern as described in GoF.) The user intervention here was to protect