Hello!
Is this too crazy or not?
Copy constructor: why can't I copy objects as if they were structs?
I have a set of simple objects (no string properties, just integers,
doubles) and I have to copy the same object millions of times.
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Is this too stupid?
By the way, I'm a C++ newbie! But don't go easy on me just because...
;)
Bye! Thanks for your help and attention.
Jorge C. rd******@yahoo.com 24  3541 
rdc02271 wrote: Is this too crazy or not?
Copy constructor: why can't I copy objects as if they were structs?
What does it mean? I honestly am baffled by questions like this. "Why
can't I use a pencil to write"? How do you answer such a question?
I have a set of simple objects (no string properties, just integers,
doubles) and I have to copy the same object millions of times.
OK.
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Sure. If your class is a POD class, you can use memcpy. In general,
if you don't write your copy constructor, the compiler "provides" one,
and it invokes copy constructing semantics for all members.
Is this too stupid?
I don't know how to answer this either.
By the way, I'm a C++ newbie! But don't go easy on me just because...
;)
Have you read the FAQ yet?
V
rdc02271 wrote: Hello!
Is this too crazy or not?
Copy constructor: why can't I copy objects as if they were structs?
I have a set of simple objects (no string properties, just integers,
doubles) and I have to copy the same object millions of times.
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Is this too stupid?
By the way, I'm a C++ newbie! But don't go easy on me just because...
;)
If you donot declare a copy constructor explicitly, the compiler will
provide a default copy-constructor which will do a bitwise copy of the
data members of basic types. So if your class contains only integers
and doubles, you may very well skip writing the CC completely - the
compiler generated constructor will do the necessary work for you.
HTH.
Hi! Sorry and where is the FAQ?
Thanks!
Jorge C.
Neelesh Bodas wrote: rdc02271 wrote:
Hello!
Is this too crazy or not?
Copy constructor: why can't I copy objects as if they were structs?
I have a set of simple objects (no string properties, just integers,
doubles) and I have to copy the same object millions of times.
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Is this too stupid?
By the way, I'm a C++ newbie! But don't go easy on me just because...
;)
If you donot declare a copy constructor explicitly, the compiler will
provide a default copy-constructor which will do a bitwise copy
No. The default copy-constructor does _memberwise_ copy. IOW, it will
invoke copy semantics for every member. If a member has user-defined
copy constructor, that copy constructor will be used. If some member
does not have a user-defined copy-constructor, it might still adhere to
some copy-construction rules. If members cannot be copy-constructed,
the program is ill-formed.
of the
data members of basic types. So if your class contains only integers
and doubles, you may very well skip writing the CC completely - the
compiler generated constructor will do the necessary work for you.
That is true.
V
Victor Bazarov wrote: Neelesh Bodas wrote: If you donot declare a copy constructor explicitly, the compiler will
provide a default copy-constructor which will do a bitwise copy
No. The default copy-constructor does _memberwise_ copy. IOW, it will
invoke copy semantics for every member. If a member has user-defined
copy constructor, that copy constructor will be used. If some member
does not have a user-defined copy-constructor, it might still adhere to
some copy-construction rules. If members cannot be copy-constructed,
the program is ill-formed.
Thats true. May be I wrote it in a confusing way. I said that - If you donot declare a copy constructor explicitly, the compiler will provide
a default copy-constructor which will do a bitwise copy
*of the data members of basic types*
I should have also added a comment about the non-POD members.
Also, for basic data types, isn't the memberwise copy same as the
bitwise copy? Or not necessarily?
rdc02271 wrote: Hi! Sorry and where is the FAQ?
The location of the FAQ is spelled out in the "Welcome" message
published here every week for all newcomers to read. It is also
noted many times in the archives available at groups.google.com
V
Victor Bazarov wrote:
If members cannot be copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed.
Hm, what about members of class defined as intentionally not copyable?
Cheers
--
Mateusz Łoskot http://mateusz.loskot.net
Neelesh Bodas wrote: [..]
Also, for basic data types, isn't the memberwise copy same as the
bitwise copy? Or not necessarily?
A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
V
Victor Bazarov wrote: Neelesh Bodas wrote: [..]
Also, for basic data types, isn't the memberwise copy same as the
bitwise copy? Or not necessarily?
A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
Ok. That is a valuable guideline. Thanks.
Mateusz Łoskot wrote: Victor Bazarov wrote:
If members cannot be copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed.
Hm, what about members of class defined as intentionally not copyable?
I don't understand the question, given the context.
V
Victor Bazarov wrote: Mateusz Łoskot wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
If members cannot be copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed.
Hm, what about members of class defined as intentionally not copyable?
I don't understand the question, given the context.
V
I think he's asking about member objects that are designed not to be
copyable (e.g. private or undefined copy constructor).
(Answer: The code won't let you copy the object. It is a compile-time
error.)
Victor Bazarov wrote: Mateusz Łoskot wrote: Victor Bazarov wrote:
If members cannot be copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed.
Hm, what about members of class defined as intentionally not copyable?
I don't understand the question, given the context.
I'll try to be more precise.
You said:
"If some member does not have a user-defined copy-constructor, it might
still adhere to some copy-construction rules. If members cannot be
copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed."
and I asked if the last rule (If members cannot be copy-constructed, the
program is ill-formed.) only applies to the situation you described
above: if class of which type is a member does have user-defined copy
constructor or generated by compiler then such member is considered as
copy-constructable but if it still can not be copy-constructed then the
program is ill-formed.
Or may be your rule of "ill-formed program" appllies to all classes with
data members, even if you have private copy-constructor.
Hm, I'm still not sure if my explanation is clear enough.
Cheers
--
Mateusz Łoskot http://mateusz.loskot.net
Mateusz Łoskot wrote: Victor Bazarov wrote:
Mateusz Łoskot wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
If members cannot be copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed.
Hm, what about members of class defined as intentionally not copyable?
I don't understand the question, given the context.
I'll try to be more precise.
You said:
"If some member does not have a user-defined copy-constructor, it might
still adhere to some copy-construction rules. If members cannot be
copy-constructed, the program is ill-formed."
and I asked if the last rule (If members cannot be copy-constructed, the
program is ill-formed.) only applies to the situation you described
above: if class of which type is a member does have user-defined copy
constructor or generated by compiler then such member is considered as
copy-constructable but if it still can not be copy-constructed then the
program is ill-formed.
You use sentences that are too long for my feeble brain.
class A { A(A&); }; // private copy c-tor
class B { A a; }; // not copy-constructible - 'a' cannot be copied
class C { B b; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor
void foo(C& c) {
C cc(c); // ill-formed
}
For the class C the compiler cannot create a copy-c-tor because 'b' does
not have "default" copy semantics because 'A' doesn't.. A program that
needs copy-construction of a 'B' or a 'C' is ill-formed.
class A { A(A&); }; // private copy c-tor
class B { A& a; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor, but 'a' can be copied
class C { B b; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor, but 'b' can be copied
void foo(C& c) {
C cc(c); // perfectly OK
}
'B' is perfectly copy-constructible, and so is 'C'. There is the issue
of constructing an object of type 'B' to begin with, but it's not what we
are talking about here.
Or may be your rule of "ill-formed program" appllies to all classes with
data members, even if you have private copy-constructor.
Again, I don't understand even this sentence. *I* don't have private
copy-constructor. Only user-defined types can have copy-constructors.
Hm, I'm still not sure if my explanation is clear enough.
I didn't get it.
V
> Victor Bazarov wrote: A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
V
How about bitset::operator[]? :>
- J.
Jacek Dziedzic wrote: > Victor Bazarov wrote:
A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
V
How about bitset::operator[]? :>
That overloaded operator is called "indexing". I would expect a C++
programmer to be familiar with it under that name.
V
Victor Bazarov wrote: rdc02271 wrote: So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Sure. If your class is a POD class, you can use memcpy.
Adding a copy-constructor renders the class a non-POD.
Old Wolf wrote: Victor Bazarov wrote:
rdc02271 wrote:
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Sure. If your class is a POD class, you can use memcpy.
Adding a copy-constructor renders the class a non-POD.
I was talking of the members.
Neelesh Bodas wrote: ...
Also, for basic data types, isn't the memberwise copy same as the
bitwise copy? Or not necessarily?
...
It depends on what exactly you understand under "bitwise copy". For basic data
types "memberwise copy" means copying all bits involved in value-representation
of given type, but it doesn't guarantee that non-value-representing bits will be
copied. This essentially means that the behavior might be different from what
'memcpy' does, since the latter always copies everything.
In other words, if one object is copied into another object using the implicitly
defined (compiler-provided) copy constructor, it is still not guaranteed that a
'memcmp' applied to these objects afterwards will report a match. Even if we are
dealing with POD objects.
--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich
Victor Bazarov wrote: Jacek Dziedzic wrote:
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
V
How about bitset::operator[]? :>
That overloaded operator is called "indexing". I would expect a C++
programmer to be familiar with it under that name.
I know, but isn't the manner in which it indexes bit-wise?
- J.
Jacek Dziedzic wrote: Victor Bazarov wrote:
Jacek Dziedzic wrote:
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking
about
the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
V
How about bitset::operator[]? :>
That overloaded operator is called "indexing". I would expect a C++
programmer to be familiar with it under that name.
I know, but isn't the manner in which it indexes bit-wise?
Well, as opposed to what? Indexing them logically? Indexing them whole?
Victor Bazarov wrote: You use sentences that are too long for my feeble brain.
class A { A(A&); }; // private copy c-tor
class B { A a; }; // not copy-constructible - 'a' cannot be copied
class C { B b; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor
void foo(C& c) {
C cc(c); // ill-formed
}
For the class C the compiler cannot create a copy-c-tor because 'b' does
not have "default" copy semantics because 'A' doesn't.. A program that
needs copy-construction of a 'B' or a 'C' is ill-formed.
class A { A(A&); }; // private copy c-tor
class B { A& a; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor, but 'a' can be copied
class C { B b; }; // no user-defined copy c-tor, but 'b' can be copied
void foo(C& c) {
C cc(c); // perfectly OK
}
'B' is perfectly copy-constructible, and so is 'C'. There is the issue
of constructing an object of type 'B' to begin with, but it's not what we
are talking about here.
Thank you for your great patience. You gave me explenation I tried to
ask for. Simply, I couldn't express my question as simple as I should.
Why? I'm not sure, may be I didn't understand the problem as I should
firt. Now, I know what you had in mind in your previous post.
Thank you
--
Mateusz Łoskot http://mateusz.loskot.net
rdc02271 wrote: Hello!
Is this too crazy or not?
Copy constructor: why can't I copy objects as if they were structs?
I have a set of simple objects (no string properties, just integers,
doubles) and I have to copy the same object millions of times.
So instead of writing in the copy constructor
property1=SourceObject.property1 can't I use memory copy functions to
do this faster?
Is this too stupid?
By the way, I'm a C++ newbie! But don't go easy on me just because...
;)
If you cannot afford a copy constructor, one will be appointed for
you before questioning.
The compiler generates a copy constructor if the user doesn't define
one. If there are no subobjects that themselves have copy constructors
it almost certainly does a very fast block copy of the object.
Victor Bazarov wrote: Jacek Dziedzic wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
Jacek Dziedzic wrote:
> Victor Bazarov wrote:
> A C++ practitioner should only use the term "bitwise" when talking
> about
> the binary operators &, |, and ^, and the unary ~.
>
> V
How about bitset::operator[]? :>
That overloaded operator is called "indexing". I would expect a C++
programmer to be familiar with it under that name.
I know, but isn't the manner in which it indexes bit-wise?
Well, as opposed to what? Indexing them logically? Indexing them whole?
As opposed to nothing, actually. What I meant to say was that
a "C++ practitioner" could easily use the word "bitwise" in
contexts other than involving "bitwise operators" that you
have mentioned.
My point was that a statement like
"the bitset::operator[] overloaded operator allows for bitwise
access to the bitset" would be pretty legal.
But in fact I won't argue.
eot,
- J. This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: A |
last post by:
Hi,
A default copy constructor is created for you when you don't specify one
yourself. In such case, the default copy constructor will simply do a
bitwise copy for primitives (including...
|
by: MSR |
last post by:
I have a couple of questions.
1. Copy Constructor.
class A {
private:
int a1;
double d1;
char *ptr;
|
by: Jeff Mallett |
last post by:
VC++.NET gave me Compiler Error C2621, which states,
"A union member cannot have a copy constructor."
Yikes, that can't be true! As I understand it, *all*
class objects have copy constructors,...
|
by: utab |
last post by:
Dear all,
So passing and returning a class object is the time when to include the
definition of the copy constructor into the class definition. But if we
don't call by value or return by value, ...
|
by: rKrishna |
last post by:
I was trying to understand the real need for copy constructors. From
literature, the main reason for redfinition of copy constructor in a
program is to allow deep copying; meaning ability to make...
|
by: Zytan |
last post by:
I have a struct constructor to initialize all of my private (or public
readonly) fields. There still exists the default constructor that sets
them all to zero. Is there a way to remove the...
|
by: JD |
last post by:
Hi,
My associate has written a copy constructor for a class. Now I need to add
an operator = to the class. Is there a way to do it without change her code
(copy constructor) at all? Your help...
|
by: Peter Olcott |
last post by:
Why can a union have a member with a copy constructor?
|
by: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcel_M=FCller?= |
last post by:
Hi,
is there a way to avoid the automatic copy constructor generation. I do
not want the object to be non-copyable. I simply do not want that
copying is done by the default copy constructor. But...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 2 August 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM)
The start time is equivalent to 19:00 (7PM) in Central...
|
by: erikbower65 |
last post by:
Using CodiumAI's pr-agent is simple and powerful. Follow these steps:
1. Install CodiumAI CLI: Ensure Node.js is installed, then run 'npm install -g codiumai' in the terminal.
2. Connect to...
|
by: linyimin |
last post by:
Spring Startup Analyzer generates an interactive Spring application startup report that lets you understand what contributes to the application startup time and helps to optimize it. Support for...
|
by: erikbower65 |
last post by:
Here's a concise step-by-step guide for manually installing IntelliJ IDEA:
1. Download: Visit the official JetBrains website and download the IntelliJ IDEA Community or Ultimate edition based on...
|
by: Rina0 |
last post by:
I am looking for a Python code to find the longest common subsequence of two strings. I found this blog post that describes the length of longest common subsequence problem and provides a solution in...
|
by: DJRhino |
last post by:
Private Sub CboDrawingID_BeforeUpdate(Cancel As Integer)
If = 310029923 Or 310030138 Or 310030152 Or 310030346 Or 310030348 Or _
310030356 Or 310030359 Or 310030362 Or...
|
by: lllomh |
last post by:
Define the method first
this.state = {
buttonBackgroundColor: 'green',
isBlinking: false, // A new status is added to identify whether the button is blinking or not
}
autoStart=()=>{
|
by: lllomh |
last post by:
How does React native implement an English player?
|
by: Mushico |
last post by:
How to calculate date of retirement from date of birth
| |
