Interesting Copy Constructors!!

[vj]

Hi! I recently came across this intresting behaviour shown by Visual
C++ 6.0 compiler regarding Copy Constructors. Please tell me that is
this the standard behaviour shown by all compilers or its limited only
to VC++.
Listing 1
==================
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Class1
{
int i;
public:
Class1(int ii)
{i=ii;cout<<"Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with
"<<ii<<endl;}

int geti(){return i;}

Class1(Class1 & c)
{i=c.i;cout<<"Class1::Copy Constructor called with "<<i<<endl;}
};

ostream & operator<<(ostream & os,Class1 & c)
{return os<<c.geti();}

Class1 getNext(Class1 c)
{Class1 cc(c.geti()+1);
return cc;
}

void main()
{Class1 c(0);
cout<<getNext(c);
cin.get();
}

Output
===============
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 0
Class1::Copy Constructor called with 0
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 1
Class1::Copy Constructor called with 1
1
Listing 2
===============
/* same class but diffrent get getNext & main functions*/
Class1 getNext(Class1 c)
{return Class1(c.geti()+1);}

void main()
{cout<<getNext(Class1(0));
cin.get();
}

output
================
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 0
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 1 //!!Strange No Copy
Constructor
1

It seems that the compiler is bypassing the copy constructor when
creating a temporary object. It does seems sense as there no need to
call the copy constructor as the object is already created and
gauranteed to be unmodified, So it passes the object itself to the
function.

However I am not sure that this behaviour a standard behaviour of copy
constructors?
Thanks,
VJ

[Zara]

On 26 Oct 2005 20:37:31 -0700, "vj" <va*******@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi! I recently came across this intresting behaviour shown by Visual
C++ 6.0 compiler regarding Copy Constructors. Please tell me that is
this the standard behaviour shown by all compilers or its limited only
to VC++.
Listing 1
==================
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Class1
{
int i;
public:
Class1(int ii)
{i=ii;cout<<"Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with
"<<ii<<endl;}

int geti(){return i;}

Class1(Class1 & c)
{i=c.i;cout<<"Class1::Copy Constructor called with "<<i<<endl;}
};

ostream & operator<<(ostream & os,Class1 & c)
{return os<<c.geti();}

Class1 getNext(Class1 c)
{Class1 cc(c.geti()+1);
return cc;
}

void main()
{Class1 c(0);
cout<<getNext(c);
cin.get();
}

Output
===============
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 0
Class1::Copy Constructor called with 0
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 1
Class1::Copy Constructor called with 1
1
Listing 2
===============
/* same class but diffrent get getNext & main functions*/
Class1 getNext(Class1 c)
{return Class1(c.geti()+1);}

void main()
{cout<<getNext(Class1(0));
cin.get();
}

output
================
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 0
Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with 1 //!!Strange No Copy
Constructor
1

It seems that the compiler is bypassing the copy constructor when
creating a temporary object. It does seems sense as there no need to
call the copy constructor as the object is already created and
gauranteed to be unmodified, So it passes the object itself to the
function.

However I am not sure that this behaviour a standard behaviour of copy
constructors?
Thanks,
VJ

It is an opional optimization, and it is compiler dependent. Some
compilers may have optimized the first case to be exactly the same as
your second case.

[Peter_Julian]

"vj" <va*******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
|
| Hi! I recently came across this intresting behaviour shown by Visual
| C++ 6.0 compiler regarding Copy Constructors. Please tell me that is
| this the standard behaviour shown by all compilers or its limited only
| to VC++.

Allow me to focus on your class design instead...

|
|
| Listing 1
| ==================
| #include <iostream>
| using namespace std;
| class Class1
| {
| int i;
| public:
| Class1(int ii)
| {i=ii;cout<<"Class1::Parameteized Constructor called with
| "<<ii<<endl;}
|
| int geti(){return i;}

int geti() const
{
return i;
}

see section 18.10 in the faq
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...rrectness.html

|
| Class1(Class1 & c)

Class1(const Class1& c)

| {i=c.i;cout<<"Class1::Copy Constructor called with "<<i<<endl;}
|

friend std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Class1& c);

|
| };
|
| ostream & operator<<(ostream & os,Class1 & c)

std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& os, const Class1& c)
{
os << c.i;
return os;
}

gee, all of a sudden, you don't even need geti()

| {return os<<c.geti();}
|
| Class1 getNext(Class1 c)
| {Class1 cc(c.geti()+1);
| return cc;
| }

What if getNext(..) attempts to "get" a Class1 node that doesn't exist?
The creator of the class is responsible to supply the appropriate
robustness to cover that eventuality. This should not be left to the
user of the class.

You'ld have a more robust design if you relied on an STL container to
store the instances of Class1 and iterators to get next valid elements.
With iterators, one past the last element in either direction will
evaluate to null. This greatly simplifies your class's design (and
eventually: a container's design).

ie (not tested):

// test.cpp
#include "Class1.h" // without geti() or getNext(...)
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
#include <list> // or vector, queue, deque

int main()
{
std::list< Class1 > clist;
clist.push_back(0);
clist.push_back(1);
clist.push_back(2);

// std::copy would be useful here, but for the sake of
// explaining iterators and their benefits...

typedef std::list< Class1 >::iterator CIter;
CIter c_iter = clist.begin(); // where *c_iter is now the first
element

// the for loop remains unchanged regardless of clist's actual size
!
for( c_iter; c_iter != clist.end(); ++c_iter)
{
std::cout << *c_iter << " ";
}
std::endl;
}

<snip>

[Michael Kochetkov]

> However I am not sure that this behaviour a standard behaviour of copy

constructors?

Yes, it is. It is standard.

--
Michael Kochetkov

[vj]

Dear friends,

Thanks for your support, but i think that there is wierd scenario here.
On one side Zara says that this is not a standard but mearly an
optional optimization . However Michael Kochetkov says that it is the
standard behaviour. Please don't let me confused.... What i really need
is a definite answer.

Thanks,
VJ

[Greg]

Peter_Julian wrote:
...

You'ld have a more robust design if you relied on an STL container to
store the instances of Class1 and iterators to get next valid elements.
With iterators, one past the last element in either direction will
evaluate to null. This greatly simplifies your class's design (and
eventually: a container's design).
ie (not tested):

// test.cpp
#include "Class1.h" // without geti() or getNext(...)
#include <iostream>
#include <ostream>
#include <list> // or vector, queue, deque

int main()
{
std::list< Class1 > clist;
clist.push_back(0);
clist.push_back(1);
clist.push_back(2);

// std::copy would be useful here, but for the sake of
// explaining iterators and their benefits...

typedef std::list< Class1 >::iterator CIter;
CIter c_iter = clist.begin(); // where *c_iter is now the first
element

// the for loop remains unchanged regardless of clist's actual size
!
for( c_iter; c_iter != clist.end(); ++c_iter)
{
std::cout << *c_iter << " ";
}
std::endl;
}

An iterator advanced to the end of a sequence is not guaranteed (or
even be likely) to evaluate to NULL. Such an iterator cannot even be
safely dereferenced. It can be compared to another iterator in the same
container, usually the end() iterator as the example provided
demonstrates.

Greg

[Kai-Uwe Bux]

vj wrote:

Dear friends,

Thanks for your support, but i think that there is wierd scenario here.
On one side Zara says that this is not a standard but mearly an
optional optimization . However Michael Kochetkov says that it is the
standard behaviour. Please don't let me confused.... What i really need
is a definite answer.

The standard *allows* elimination of copy constructors in certain
circumstances but it does not *require* the copy constructor to be bypassed
in these case. Thus, the behavior you observed is blessed but not enforced
by the standard. The reason that the standard allows elimination of copy
constructors in some cases is indeed to ease optimization.
Best

Kai-Uwe Bux

[Michael Kochetkov]

> Dear friends,

Thanks for your support, but i think that there is wierd scenario
here. On one side Zara says that this is not a standard but mearly an
optional optimization . However Michael Kochetkov says that it is the
standard behaviour. Please don't let me confused.... What i really
need is a definite answer.

In addition to the answer above: though a compiler can eliminate objects
copying during, for example, return value optimization the publicly available
copy constructor (explicitly or implicitly declared) is a must in this case.
Even if it is never called at all.

--
Michael Kochetkov