Re: C++ 101 dumb question

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

CMyClass(CMyClass src);

Almost... but here you have specified pass-by-value, which requires a copy
of the actual parameter to be made, which requires a call to the copy
constructor...

The real copy constructor is

CMyClass(const CMyClass& src);
or
CMyClass(CMyClass& src);

The second case is used only for move semantics, which are very rare
(std::auto_ptr is the only common class using it).


OR

is it:-

CMyClass& operator=(CMyClass& src);

you are liable to get a default version of it supplied by the
compiler. Its action is to copy the data members of the class, member by
member. If (as in your case) one of those members is a pointer, then
you'll create a copy of the pointer, and not a copy of the data it points
to. When that data goes out of scope, you'll find yourself with a
pointer
to junk.

Right I get that. What if the member was an instance of class that does
have it's own copy constructor would the default copy constructor call
that
to copy the member or would it blindly copy the members of that object as
well? That to me is the critical question.


So if a class contains a pointer to data which it *owns*, then the copy
constructor must make a copy of the data and set its pointer to point at
the
copy. [There are string classes which come complete with copy
constructors
which manage all that. If you use standard nul-terminated strings as in
C,
then you have to do it yourself.]

Ok got that.


(NB Functions which return a class will also call the copy constructor,
even though neither of the above statements occur explicitly in that
form,
as a copy of the class being returned is placed on the stack for the
benefit
of the calling function. The same is true if you call a function with a
class as one of its arguments.)

Surely that could be optimised away. The existing object is already on
the
stack. Are you saying a second copy gets added to the stack, then the
original has it's destructor called, then after returning execution to the
caller another copy is performed, then presumably this temporary copy in
the
stack has it's destructor called?

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance again but since the callee knows its to
return an object it has on the stack it could defer its destruction to the
caller. The caller could perform the copy constructor once then destroy
the
object from the callee function.



Dave

--
David Webber
Author of 'Mozart the Music Processor'
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C++ Object Pointers
    ... requires a copy constructor be defined; if one is not, you can't pass the object by value, ... It pushes the rightmost argument onto the stack, ... >> You pass in a pointer to a variable that is set to NULL. ... >> I don't see how your example of allocating a Base object could possibly ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: C++ 101 dumb question
    ... Yep I do comprehend the difference between a pointer and the data it ... If you have a CMyClass a; ... What does the signature of a copy constructor look like? ... Its action is to copy the data members of the class, ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Re: Question about arrays in objects
    ... >>I want to create a 2d array as an object member. ... > handled in the constructor, you just can't use a plain old array. ... > that is where using a pointer would come in. ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • Questions of copy constructor
    ... have a copy constructor and assignment operator. ... If a base class have a pointer member, ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: Linked List, Newbie question
    ... > list this pointer changes to the new element, ... a constructor for the Point object. ... the next member to NULL, so that you're sure it's always going to be NULL ... You should have a destructor for this class. ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)