CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++classcopy-constructorcopy-assignment
Skylar
Skylar

Reputation: 127

Use copy constructor while user-declared move constructor is present

I'm having some confusion towards using the copy constructor and copy assignment operator while dealing with unique_ptr. I would really appreciate it if you could share some insights!

Now we have class B.
Struct C is a member of class B.
Struct C has a std::unique_ptr<A> member.

A.h

class A {
 public:
  A(int* id);
  A(const A& other);
  ~A() override;

 private:
  Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr<int> id_;
};

A.cpp

A::A(int* id) : id_(id) {
}

A::A(
    const A& other) {
  id_ = other.id_;
}

A::~A() = default;

B.h

class B {
 public:
  struct C{
   public:
    C(
        int input_pad_id,
        Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr<int> input_id,
        std::unique_ptr<A>& input_a);
    C(const C& other);
    C& operator=(const C&);
    ~C();

    int pad_id;
    Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr<int> id;
    std::unique_ptr<A> a;
  };

  B();
  B(const B&) = delete;
  B& operator=(const B&) = delete;
  ~B() override;

 private:
  std::vector<C> c_item_;
};

B.cpp

B::B() = default;

B::~B() = default;

/* omitting some code related to operation logic */
...
c_item_.push_back({pad_id, id, nullptr});
...
/* omitting some code related to operation logic */

B::C::C(int input_pad_id,
        Microsoft::WRL::ComPtr<int> input_id,
        std::unique_ptr<A>& input_a)
    : pad_id(input_pad_id), id(input_id),
      a(std::move(input_a)) {}

B::C::~C() = default;

B::C::C(const C& other) = default;

B::C& B::C::operator=(const B::C& other) = default;

While building I got this error log:

error: no matching member function for call to 'push_back'
  c_item_.push_back({pad_id, id, nullptr});
  ~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~
../../buildtools/third_party/libc++/trunk/include\vector(711,36): note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert initializer list argument to 'const std::__vector_base<B::C, std::allocator<B::C>>::value_type' (aka 'const B::C')
    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY void push_back(const_reference __x);
                                   ^
../../buildtools/third_party/libc++/trunk/include\vector(714,36): note: candidate function not viable: cannot convert initializer list argument to 'std::vector<B::C>::value_type' (aka 'B::C')
    _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY void push_back(value_type&& __x);
                                   ^
../B.cc(311,5): error: defaulting this copy constructor would delete it after its first declaration
    B::C::C(const C& other) = default;
       ^
../B.h(33,46): note: copy constructor of 'C' is implicitly deleted because field 'c_item' has a deleted copy constructor
    std::unique_ptr<C> c_item;

../../buildtools/third_party/libc++/trunk/include\memory(2528,3): note: copy constructor is implicitly deleted because 'unique_ptr<B>' has a user-declared move constructor
  unique_ptr(unique_ptr&& __u) _NOEXCEPT
  ^
../B.cc(315,65): error: defaulting this copy assignment operator would delete it after its first declaration
    B::C& B::C::operator=(const B::C& other) = default;
                ^
../B.h(33,46): note: copy assignment operator of 'C' is implicitly deleted because field 'c_item' has a deleted copy assignment operator
    std::unique_ptr<A> a;

../../buildtools/third_party/libc++/trunk/include\memory(2528,3): note: copy assignment operator is implicitly deleted because 'unique_ptr<A>' has a user-declared move constructor
  unique_ptr(unique_ptr&& __u) _NOEXCEPT
  ^

In this case, how could I solve this compile error by making the code use the copy constructor that is available while unique_ptr<A> has a user-declared move constructor?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 1406

Answers (2)

Red.Wave
Red.Wave

Reputation: 4201

template<typename X, typename D=std::default_deleter<A>, typename base=std::unique_ptr<A,D>>
struct not_unique_ptr
:   base {
    static_assert(std::is_same_v<base,std::unique_ptr<A,D>>);
    not_unique_ptr()=default;
    not_unique_ptr(not_unique_ptr &&) = default;
    not_unique_ptr(not_unique_ptr const& init)
    :   base{std::make_unique<A>(*init)};
    explicit not_unique_ptr(base && b) 
    :   base{std::move(b)}{};
    auto& operator=(not_unique_ptr &&) = default;
    auto& operator=(base&& rhs){
        base&{*this}=std::move(rhs);
    };
    auto& operator=(not_unique_ptr const& rhs){
        base&{*this}=base&&{not_unique_ptr{rhs}};
    };
};

Upvotes: 0

Mooing Duck
Mooing Duck

Reputation: 66922

Let me remove some formatting:

 error: defaulting this copy constructor would delete it...
  C(const C& other) = default;
 ...because copy constructor of 'C' is implicitly deleted because field 'c_item' has a deleted copy constructor
  std::unique_ptr<C> c_item;

std::unique_ptr has no copy constructor, because it's unique. It can't be copied. So the default copy constructor for anything that contains a std::unique_ptr is deleted. So your C class has no copy constructor. Also, you never gave it a move constructor.

And std::vector insertion methods (aka push_back) might have to resize, so it has to move or copy it's elements, but C has no copy or move constructor, so you're getting a compiler error.

So the solution is to give C either a working copy constructor, and/or a move constructor. If it makes sense for whatever your C is, you could give it a copy constructor by making a deep copy of the pointed at A, but I don't know what A is, so I can't say for certain. It almost always makes sense to create a move constructor though.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions