I ran today against a quite subtle issue I'd like to have your opinion on.
Consider the following garden-variety shared-body-idiom class:
struct S
{
S() : p_impl(new impl) {}
private:
struct impl;
boost::shared_ptr<impl> p_impl;
};
The fun appears when you try to put those into vectors in the following way:
std::vector<S> v(42);
Now, with MSVC 8 at least, all the elements in v
share the same impl
member. Actually, what causes this is the vector
constructor:
template <typename T, typename A = ...>
class vector
{
vector(size_t n, const T& x = T(), const A& a = A());
...
};
Under the scenes, only one S
object gets default constructed, the n
elements of the vector
are copied from it.
Now, with C++11, there are rvalue references. So it cannot work like this. If a vector
is constructed as
std::vector<S> v(42);
then most likely, implementations will chose to default construct the n
objects inside the vector, since copy construction may not be available. This would be a breaking change in this case.
My question is:
std::vector
must have a constructor defined as above, ie. with a default argument ? In particular is there a guarantee that the entries of the vector object get copied instead of default constructed ?PS: Please no comments about the default constructor of the class S
above. It was this or implementing some form of lazy construction.
Does the C++03 standard mandate that
std::vector
must have a constructor defined as above, i.e. with a default argument? In particular is there a guarantee that the entries of the vector object get copied instead of default constructed?
Yes, the specified behavior is that x
is copied n
times so that the container is initialized to contain with n
elements that are all copies of x
.
What does the C++11 Standard say about this same point?
In C++11 this constructor has been turned into two constructors.
vector(size_type n, const T& x, const Allocator& = Allocator()); // (1)
explicit vector(size_type n); // (2)
Except for the fact that it no longer has a default argument for the second parameter, (1) works the same way as it does in C++03: x
is copied n
times.
In lieu of the default argument for x
, (2) has been added. This constructor value-initializes n
elements in the container. No copies are made.
If you require the old behavior, you can ensure that (1) is called by providing a second argument to the constructor invocation:
std::vector<S> v(42, S());
I see this as a possibility for a breaking change between C++03 and C++11. I see this as a possibility for a breaking change between C++03 and C++11. Has this issue been investigated? Solved?
Yes, as your example demonstrates, this is indeed a breaking change.
As I am not a member of the C++ standardization committee (and I haven't paid particularly close attention to library-related papers in the mailings), I don't know to what degree this breaking change was discussed.