Avoid calling default, move and copy constructor

I have following example (extension to Avoid calling move constructor)

#include <cstdint>



class Interface

{

public:

   Interface() = default;

   virtual ~Interface() = default;

   Interface(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface(Interface&&) = delete;

   const Interface& operator=(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface& operator=(Interface&&) = delete;

};



class FooC : public Interface

{

public:

   FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)

   : PORT(iPort)

   , PIN(iPin)

   {

   };



   FooC() = delete;

   ~FooC() override = default;

   FooC(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC(FooC&&) = delete;

   const FooC& operator=(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC& operator=(FooC&&) = delete;



private:

   const uint16_t PORT;

   const uint16_t PIN;

};



class FactoryC

{

public:

   FactoryC()

   : mFoo{

     {1, 2},

     {3, 4}

   }

   {

   };



   ~FactoryC() = default;

   FactoryC(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC(FactoryC&&) = delete;

   const FactoryC& operator=(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC& operator=(FactoryC&&) = delete;



private:

   FooC mFoo[2];

};



int main()

{

    FactoryC factory{};

}

and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++17)

<source>: In constructor 'FactoryC::FactoryC()':



<source>:42:4: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'



    }



    ^



<source>:26:4: note: declared here



    FooC(FooC&&) = delete;



    ^~~~



Compiler returned: 1

Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor of FooC?

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

1

cannot reproduce: godbolt.org/z/ax8I1F
– bolov
Nov 19 '18 at 20:58

Fwiw, msvc 19 (vs2015) chews this up without issue.
– WhozCraig
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

2

@bolov error happens with gcc 8.2. Might be a bug.
– user10605163
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

5

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.
– SergeyA
Nov 19 '18 at 21:05

add a comment |

I have following example (extension to Avoid calling move constructor)

#include <cstdint>



class Interface

{

public:

   Interface() = default;

   virtual ~Interface() = default;

   Interface(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface(Interface&&) = delete;

   const Interface& operator=(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface& operator=(Interface&&) = delete;

};



class FooC : public Interface

{

public:

   FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)

   : PORT(iPort)

   , PIN(iPin)

   {

   };



   FooC() = delete;

   ~FooC() override = default;

   FooC(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC(FooC&&) = delete;

   const FooC& operator=(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC& operator=(FooC&&) = delete;



private:

   const uint16_t PORT;

   const uint16_t PIN;

};



class FactoryC

{

public:

   FactoryC()

   : mFoo{

     {1, 2},

     {3, 4}

   }

   {

   };



   ~FactoryC() = default;

   FactoryC(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC(FactoryC&&) = delete;

   const FactoryC& operator=(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC& operator=(FactoryC&&) = delete;



private:

   FooC mFoo[2];

};



int main()

{

    FactoryC factory{};

}

and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++17)

<source>: In constructor 'FactoryC::FactoryC()':



<source>:42:4: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'



    }



    ^



<source>:26:4: note: declared here



    FooC(FooC&&) = delete;



    ^~~~



Compiler returned: 1

Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor of FooC?

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

1

cannot reproduce: godbolt.org/z/ax8I1F
– bolov
Nov 19 '18 at 20:58

Fwiw, msvc 19 (vs2015) chews this up without issue.
– WhozCraig
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

2

@bolov error happens with gcc 8.2. Might be a bug.
– user10605163
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

5

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.
– SergeyA
Nov 19 '18 at 21:05

add a comment |

I have following example (extension to Avoid calling move constructor)

#include <cstdint>



class Interface

{

public:

   Interface() = default;

   virtual ~Interface() = default;

   Interface(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface(Interface&&) = delete;

   const Interface& operator=(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface& operator=(Interface&&) = delete;

};



class FooC : public Interface

{

public:

   FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)

   : PORT(iPort)

   , PIN(iPin)

   {

   };



   FooC() = delete;

   ~FooC() override = default;

   FooC(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC(FooC&&) = delete;

   const FooC& operator=(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC& operator=(FooC&&) = delete;



private:

   const uint16_t PORT;

   const uint16_t PIN;

};



class FactoryC

{

public:

   FactoryC()

   : mFoo{

     {1, 2},

     {3, 4}

   }

   {

   };



   ~FactoryC() = default;

   FactoryC(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC(FactoryC&&) = delete;

   const FactoryC& operator=(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC& operator=(FactoryC&&) = delete;



private:

   FooC mFoo[2];

};



int main()

{

    FactoryC factory{};

}

and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++17)

<source>: In constructor 'FactoryC::FactoryC()':



<source>:42:4: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'



    }



    ^



<source>:26:4: note: declared here



    FooC(FooC&&) = delete;



    ^~~~



Compiler returned: 1

Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor of FooC?

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

I have following example (extension to Avoid calling move constructor)

#include <cstdint>



class Interface

{

public:

   Interface() = default;

   virtual ~Interface() = default;

   Interface(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface(Interface&&) = delete;

   const Interface& operator=(const Interface&) = delete;

   Interface& operator=(Interface&&) = delete;

};



class FooC : public Interface

{

public:

   FooC(uint16_t iPort, uint16_t iPin)

   : PORT(iPort)

   , PIN(iPin)

   {

   };



   FooC() = delete;

   ~FooC() override = default;

   FooC(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC(FooC&&) = delete;

   const FooC& operator=(const FooC&) = delete;

   FooC& operator=(FooC&&) = delete;



private:

   const uint16_t PORT;

   const uint16_t PIN;

};



class FactoryC

{

public:

   FactoryC()

   : mFoo{

     {1, 2},

     {3, 4}

   }

   {

   };



   ~FactoryC() = default;

   FactoryC(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC(FactoryC&&) = delete;

   const FactoryC& operator=(const FactoryC&) = delete;

   FactoryC& operator=(FactoryC&&) = delete;



private:

   FooC mFoo[2];

};



int main()

{

    FactoryC factory{};

}

and I don't want to call the default, move and copy constructor. Due to that I deleted the functions. Unfortunately this results in following error (compiled with C++17)

<source>: In constructor 'FactoryC::FactoryC()':



<source>:42:4: error: use of deleted function 'FooC::FooC(FooC&&)'



    }



    ^



<source>:26:4: note: declared here



    FooC(FooC&&) = delete;



    ^~~~



Compiler returned: 1

Is it possible to force in this example the calling of constructor with the parameters and still delete the default, move and copy constructor of FooC?

c++ c++11 gcc c++17

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

edited Nov 19 '18 at 21:07

SergeyA

41.5k53783

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

asked Nov 19 '18 at 20:55

Zlatan

18110

1

cannot reproduce: godbolt.org/z/ax8I1F
– bolov
Nov 19 '18 at 20:58

Fwiw, msvc 19 (vs2015) chews this up without issue.
– WhozCraig
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

2

@bolov error happens with gcc 8.2. Might be a bug.
– user10605163
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

5

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.
– SergeyA
Nov 19 '18 at 21:05

add a comment |

1

cannot reproduce: godbolt.org/z/ax8I1F
– bolov
Nov 19 '18 at 20:58

Fwiw, msvc 19 (vs2015) chews this up without issue.
– WhozCraig
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

2

@bolov error happens with gcc 8.2. Might be a bug.
– user10605163
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

5

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.
– SergeyA
Nov 19 '18 at 21:05

cannot reproduce: godbolt.org/z/ax8I1F
– bolov
Nov 19 '18 at 20:58

Fwiw, msvc 19 (vs2015) chews this up without issue.
– WhozCraig
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

@bolov error happens with gcc 8.2. Might be a bug.
– user10605163
Nov 19 '18 at 20:59

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.
– SergeyA
Nov 19 '18 at 21:05

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

This appears to be a bug. @SergeyA's comment:

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.

suggests that the issue has to do with virtual base classes. Indeed, bug report #86849 deals with an unrelated issue and Richard Smith comes to this conclusion:

Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class has virtual base classes.

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

1

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53382501%2favoid-calling-default-move-and-copy-constructor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

This appears to be a bug. @SergeyA's comment:

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.

suggests that the issue has to do with virtual base classes. Indeed, bug report #86849 deals with an unrelated issue and Richard Smith comes to this conclusion:

Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class has virtual base classes.

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

1

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

add a comment |

This appears to be a bug. @SergeyA's comment:

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.

suggests that the issue has to do with virtual base classes. Indeed, bug report #86849 deals with an unrelated issue and Richard Smith comes to this conclusion:

Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class has virtual base classes.

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

1

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

add a comment |

This appears to be a bug. @SergeyA's comment:

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.

suggests that the issue has to do with virtual base classes. Indeed, bug report #86849 deals with an unrelated issue and Richard Smith comes to this conclusion:

Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class has virtual base classes.

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

This appears to be a bug. @SergeyA's comment:

This certainly looks like a bug. Making Interface destructor non-virtual (with corresponding removal of override) fixes compilation issue.

suggests that the issue has to do with virtual base classes. Indeed, bug report #86849 deals with an unrelated issue and Richard Smith comes to this conclusion:

Interestingly, GCC does appear to suppress guaranteed copy elision if the class has virtual base classes.

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

answered Nov 19 '18 at 23:35

user10677333

411

1

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

add a comment |

1

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

There's no virtual base class in OP's code. There is a non-virtual base class with a virtual destructor
– M.M
Nov 20 '18 at 2:03

Thanks for the hint with the bug a providing a interim solution :-)
– Zlatan
Nov 20 '18 at 14:35

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

Search This Blog

Ufyukyu