问题
As far as I understand the new rules correctly
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/copy_elision
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0135r0.html
This code should compile for C++17 standard conform compilers
struct NonTrivialClass
{
~NonTrivialClass( ){ }
};
class MainNonTrivialClass
{
public:
MainNonTrivialClass(int t) : m_simpleTypeMember(t) { }
virtual void makeMySelfNonTrivial() {}
MainNonTrivialClass( const MainNonTrivialClass& other) = delete;
MainNonTrivialClass& operator=( const MainNonTrivialClass& other) = delete;
MainNonTrivialClass(MainNonTrivialClass&& other) = delete;
MainNonTrivialClass& operator=(MainNonTrivialClass&& other) = delete;
NonTrivialClass m_nontrivialMember;
int m_simpleTypeMember;
};
class ArrayContainer
{
public:
ArrayContainer() : m_array{{1}, {2} } {}
private:
MainNonTrivialClass m_array[2];
};
int main()
{
ArrayContainer accContainer;
}
But gcc 9.1.0 with -std=c++17 -O2 -Wall -pedantic says (as totally expected for pre C++17)
main.cpp: In constructor 'ArrayContainer::ArrayContainer()':
main.cpp:25:39: error: use of deleted function 'MainNonTrivialClass::MainNonTrivialClass(MainNonTrivialClass&&)'
25 | ArrayContainer() : m_array{{1}, {2} } {}
| ^
main.cpp:15:3: note: declared here
15 | MainNonTrivialClass(MainNonTrivialClass&& other) = delete;
Array uniform initialization this way is defined as element-wise copy initialization(?) and should lead to copy elision so I do not really understand, what's actually going on here. The old pre C++17 rules seem to be applied here. A further curiosity is, that the same code compiles fine if I remove m_nontrivialMember from my MainNonTrivialClass but shouldn't it lead to the same compile error then always since the non-copy-elision case forces the existence of the according copy/move constructors always?
回答1:
This should also work pre-C++17, where this syntax is direct-initialization. See How to initialize array of classes with deleted copy constructor (C++11) which refers to GCC bug 63707.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65166912/guaranteed-copy-elision-for-uniform-braced-array-initialization-shouldnt-this