From: wemccaug AT prairienet DOT org (Wendy E. McCaughrin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: no copy-ctor for temps
References: <37f564ff DOT 3448616 AT newsserver DOT cc DOT monash DOT edu DOT au> <eb8J3.1214$%K6 DOT 36 AT firefly>
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <7_eJ3.1245$%K6.53@firefly>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 03:29:07 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.17.3.4
X-Complaints-To: newsmgr AT prairienet DOT org
X-Trace: firefly 938834947 192.17.3.4 (Fri, 01 Oct 1999 22:29:07 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 22:29:07 CDT
Organization: Prairienet -- Your Community Network for East Central Illinois
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com


In a previous article, DavMac AT iname DOT com (Davin McCall) says:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 19:45:14 GMT, wemccaug AT prairienet DOT org (Wendy E.
>McCaughrin) wrote:
>
>> The following example shows that 'gxx' will not invoke a copy-ctor
>> for temporaries, only for variables.
>
>Are you saying that's bad?

 Well, It's not exactly kosher. Every C++ compiler I've used (dating
 back at least as far as Borland 4.5) permitted this. Whether it's
 "bad" depends upon the standard. (But read following.)

>
>The code you point out as not calling the copy-ctor instantiates a
>temporary instance of the class as a function parameter. The reason
>that the copy-ctor is not called is because no copy operation is
>performed - the temporary object is created directly on the stack
>before the function is called.
>
>The alternative, to construct the object and then copy it to the
>stack, would be less efficient.

 This is a good point -- in fact, I was compiling with -O (but it
 would be nice to be warned of such optimizations). BTW, if -O is
 assuming that default (bit-wise) copy is always more efficient
 than invoking the copy-ctor, doesn't that require some knowledge
 of what the copy-ctor does? Suppose, e.g., that my copy-ctor could
 avoid much of the bit-wise copy? Not relevant here, though.
 
>
>I am aware that this sort of thing can get confusing - I've been
>caught out by things like this myself.
>
>Davin.
>
>
>
>>
>>#include <iostream.h>
>>#include <string.h>
>>
>> class Overflow
>> { char mssg[80];
>>   public:
>>      Overflow( char* ccp ) { strcpy(mssg,ccp); }
>>      Overflow( const Overflow& ovfl )   // must be 'const' !
>>      { cerr << "copy ctor: ";  strcpy(mssg,ovfl.mssg); }
>>      void Report() { cerr << mssg; }
>> };
>>
>> void TstCpy( Overflow );    // call by value
>>
>> int main()
>> { Overflow of = " I am a variable\n";
>>   TstCpy(of);   // passing a variable: copy-ctor invoked
>>   TstCpy(Overflow(" I am a temporary\n"));  // passing temp: no copy-ctor
>>   return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> void TstCpy(Overflow ovrflw)
>> { ovrflw.Report(); }
>> 
>>
>> When compiled and run, the output is:
>>
>> copy ctor: I am a variable  (indicating call of copy-ctor)
>> I am a temporary            (defaults to bit-wise copy)
>
>__________________________________________________________
>       *** davmac - sharkin'!! davmac AT iname DOT com ***
>my programming page: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~davmac/
>