Re: Problem "taking address of temporary"

[James Kanze]

On Nov 18, 5:50 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatile coding.comwrote :

On 2008-11-18 10:52:48 -0500, Andy Gibbs <andyg1...@hotm ail.co.uksaid:

The problem comes in the line "Function(&Test ("test2"));"
with the warning "taking address of temporary". I am using
GCC 4.1.2. However, the code runs as expected with the
following output:

test1:
ctor
str=test1
dtor
test2:
ctor
str=test2
dtor
test3
null

The code above demonstrates that the Test object is not
destroyed until after Function is called, so I cannot see
why the compiler complains about this.

The compiler warns about it because the code takes the address
of a temporary, although there's nothing inherently wrong with
doing that.

Has this changed in the latest draft. According to my copy of
the standard (version 1998---out of date, I know), "The
operand [of the unary & operator] shall be an lvalue or a
qualified-id". His expression was &Test("test2 "); IMHO, the
compiler generated a warning because it was being laxist.

If I compile his code with Sun CC, I get:
"addrtemp.c c", line 34: Warning, badargtypel2w: String literal
converted to char* in formal argument str in call to Test::Test
(char*).
"addrtemp.c c", line 37: Warning, badargtypel2w: String literal
converted to char* in formal argument str in call to Test::Test
(char*).
"addrtemp.c c", line 37: Error, wantvarname: The "&" operator can
only be applied to a variable or other l-value.
Which is what I'd expect from a good compiler. Curiously
enough, g++ only generates says:
addrtemp.cc: In function 'int main(int, char**)':
addrtemp.cc:37: warning: taking address of temporary
even with -std=c++98 -pedantic (I'd call this a bug), and VC++
doesn't say anything.

If you misuse the result you can get in trouble. Apparently
the writers of your compiler thnk that you can't be trusted to
use that address without screwing up.

Apparently, the writers of his compiler don't care about the
standard. (Nothing new there.) And it's the members of the
stadnards committee who think you can't be trusted. (Or just
wanted to remain compatible with C in this respect.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]

[Victor Bazarov]

James Kanze wrote:

On Nov 18, 5:50 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatile coding.comwrote :

>On 2008-11-18 10:52:48 -0500, Andy Gibbs <andyg1...@hotm ail.co.uksaid:

>>The problem comes in the line "Function(&Test ("test2"));"
with the warning "taking address of temporary". I am using
GCC 4.1.2. However, the code runs as expected with the
following output:

>>test1:
ctor
str=test1
dtor
test2:
ctor
str=test2
dtor
test3
null

>>The code above demonstrates that the Test object is not
destroyed until after Function is called, so I cannot see
why the compiler complains about this.

>The compiler warns about it because the code takes the address
of a temporary, although there's nothing inherently wrong with
doing that.

Has this changed in the latest draft. According to my copy of
the standard (version 1998---out of date, I know), "The
operand [of the unary & operator] shall be an lvalue or a
qualified-id". His expression was &Test("test2 "); IMHO, the
compiler generated a warning because it was being laxist.
[..]

There is an inherent controversy around this. Example:

struct Foo {
Foo(int) {}
Foo& that() { return *this; }
};

int main() {
Foo(42); // expression that yields an rvalue
Foo(42).that(); // expression that is an lvalue
}

How would you explain that? :-) You can't avoid being "laxist" with the
language that contains such pearls.

V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[Andrey Tarasevich]

Victor Bazarov wrote:

>
There is an inherent controversy around this. Example:

struct Foo {
Foo(int) {}
Foo& that() { return *this; }
};

int main() {
Foo(42); // expression that yields an rvalue
Foo(42).that(); // expression that is an lvalue
}

How would you explain that? :-) You can't avoid being "laxist" with the
language that contains such pearls.
...

There's an inherent controversy around everything, if you dig deep
enough. Your example is not really different from, say

const int* addr(const int& i) { return &i; }

int main() {
const int* p = addr(42);
}

You think this is a "pearl"? I'd say this is just a necessary evil one
has to remember about.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

[Pete Becker]

On 2008-11-18 12:24:01 -0500, James Kanze <ja*********@gm ail.comsaid:

On Nov 18, 5:50 pm, Pete Becker <p...@versatile coding.comwrote :

>On 2008-11-18 10:52:48 -0500, Andy Gibbs <andyg1...@hotm ail.co.uksaid:

>>The problem comes in the line "Function(&Test ("test2"));"
with the warning "taking address of temporary". I am using
GCC 4.1.2. However, the code runs as expected with the
following output:

>>test1:
ctor
str=test1
dtor
test2:
ctor
str=test2
dtor
test3
null

>>The code above demonstrates that the Test object is not
destroyed until after Function is called, so I cannot see
why the compiler complains about this.

>The compiler warns about it because the code takes the address
of a temporary, although there's nothing inherently wrong with
doing that.

Has this changed in the latest draft. According to my copy of
the standard (version 1998---out of date, I know), "The
operand [of the unary & operator] shall be an lvalue or a
qualified-id". His expression was &Test("test2 "); IMHO, the
compiler generated a warning because it was being laxist.

No, it hasn't changed. I was being lax. Thanks for pointing it out.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[James Kanze]

On Nov 18, 6:53*pm, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@com Acast.netwrote:

James Kanze wrote:

[...]

The compiler warns about it because the code takes the
address of a temporary, although there's nothing inherently
wrong with doing that.

Has this changed in the latest draft. *According to my copy of
the standard (version 1998---out of date, I know), "The
operand [of the unary & operator] shall be an lvalue or a
qualified-id". *His expression was &Test("test2 "); IMHO, the
compiler generated a warning because it was being laxist.
[..]

There is an inherent controversy around this. *Example:

* * struct Foo {
* * * * Foo(int) {}
* * * * Foo& that() { return *this; }
* * };

* * int main() {
* * * *Foo(42); * * * *// expression that yields an rvalue
* * * *Foo(42).that() ; // expression that is an lvalue
* * }

How would you explain that? :-)

I wouldn't try to:-). But the language standard defines a
concept of lvalue and rvalue, or at least insists that they
exist, that certain expressions return lvalues, others rvalues,
and that certain operators require lvalues, others rvalues (and
that there is an lvalue to rvalue conversion---so that in
something like i=j, where both i and j have type int, there is
an implicit conversion involved). The language says that the
expression Test("test1") is an rvalue, and it says that unary &
requires an lvalue, and so be it.

You can't avoid being "laxist" with the language that contains
such pearls.

Such "pearls" are probably inevitable as soon as you try to
maintain the distinction between lvalues and rvalues, and also
have real objects. (At one point, I actually suggested that we
drop the concept of lvalue/rvalue completely, and simply state
that all temporaries were considered const. This would have
allowed things like &3, with type int const, but after all, we
allow this indirectly already, if you bind 3 to a const
reference, and then take its address.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:ja******* **@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orientée objet/
Beratung in objektorientier ter Datenverarbeitu ng
9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, [phone]