为什么当我用大括号初始化 std::vector 时
std::vector<TS> vec {ts1, ts2};
编译器调用两次复制构造函数操作符?另一方面 - 使用 push_back 它只调用一次。
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
struct TS{
TS(){
cout<<"default constructor\n";
}
TS(const TS &other) {
cout<<"Copy constructor\n";
}
TS(TS &&other) noexcept{
cout<<"Move constructor\n";
}
TS& operator=(TS const& other)
{
cout<<"Copy assigment\n";
return *this;
}
TS& operator=(TS const&& other) noexcept
{
cout<<"Move assigment\n";
return *this;
}
~TS(){
cout<<"destructor\n";
}
};
int main() {
TS ts1;
TS ts2;
cout<<"-----------------------------------------\n";
std::vector<TS> vec {ts1, ts2};
//vec.push_back(ts1);
//vec = {ts1, ts2};
cout<<"-----------------------------------------\n";
return 0;
}
最佳答案
据我了解,initializer_list
通过常量引用传递所有内容。从一个 move
可能不安全。 vector
的initializer_list
构造函数将复制每个元素。
以下是一些链接: initializer_list and move semantics
No, that won't work as intended; you will still get copies. I'm pretty surprised by this, as I'd thought that initializer_list existed to keep an array of temporaries until they were move'd.
begin and end for initializer_list return const T *, so the result of move in your code is T const && — an immutable rvalue reference. Such an expression can't meaningfully be moved from. It will bind to an function parameter of type T const & because rvalues do bind to const lvalue references, and you will still see copy semantics.
Is it safe to move elements of a initializer list?
initializer_list only provides const access to its elements. You could use const_cast to make that code compile, but then the moves might end up with undefined behaviour (if the elements of the initializer_list are truly const). So, no it is not safe to do this moving. There are workarounds for this, if you truly need it.
Can I list-initialize a vector of move-only type?
The synopsis of in 18.9 makes it reasonably clear that elements of an initializer list are always passed via const-reference. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way of using move-semantic in initializer list elements in the current revision of the language.
questions regarding the design of std::initializer_list
From section 18.9 of the C++ Standard:
An object of type initializer_list provides access to an array of objects of type const E. [ Note: A pair of pointers or a pointer plus a length would be obvious representations for initializer_list. initializer_list is used to implement initializer lists as specified in 8.5.4. Copying an initializer list does not copy the underlying elements. — end note ]
I think the reason for most of these things is that std::initializer_list isn't actually a container. It doesn't have value semantics, it has pointer semantics. Which is made obvious by the last portion of the quote: Copying an initializer list does not copy the underlying elements. Seeing as they were intended solely for the purpose of initializing things, I don't think it's that surprising that you don't get all the niceties of more robust containers such as tuples.
如果我对最后一部分的理解正确,这意味着需要两组拷贝,因为 (前面的引述只是相关的如果您尝试在不复制元素的情况下使用 initializer_list
不复制底层元素。initializer_list
。)
What is the underlying structure of std::initializer_list?
No, you can't move from the elements of an initializer_list, since elements of an initializer_list are supposed to be immutable (see the first sentence of the paragraph quoted above). That's also the reason why only const-qualified member functions give you access to the elements.
如果你愿意,你可以使用emplace_back
:
vec.emplace_back(TS());
vec.emplace_back(TS());
vec.push_back(std::move(ts1));
vec.push_back(std::move(ts2));
关于c++ - 带大括号的 std::vector init 调用复制构造函数两次,我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20501638/