英文:
Why unique_ptr requires complete type in constructor?
问题
从Is std::unique_ptr<T> required to know the full definition of T?这个问题中,我知道如果一个类A
有一个成员unique_ptr<T>
,那么在析构函数~A()
中,T
必须是一个完整的类型。然而,我遇到了这样一种情况,构造函数A()
也要求T
的完整类型,如下面的代码所示:
// a.h -------------------------------
#pragma once
#include <memory>
struct B;
struct A {
A(); // <---
~A();
std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
};
// a.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
struct B {};
A::A() = default; // <---
A::~A() = default;
// main.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
int main() {A a;}
如果将构造函数A::A()
的定义移到头文件a.h
中,编译器将报错error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘B’
。为什么会发生这种情况?是否有相关的参考资料?
顺便说一句,我正在使用Ubuntu 18.04上的gcc-7.5.0,并启用了c++17。
英文:
From Is std::unique_ptr<T> required to know the full definition of T?, I know that if a class A
has a member unique_ptr<T>
, then T
shall be a complete type in destructor ~A()
. However, I came across a situation that the constructor A()
also requires complete type of T
, see code below:
// a.h -------------------------------
#pragma once
#include <memory>
struct B;
struct A {
A(); // <---
~A();
std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
};
// a.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
struct B {};
A::A() = default; // <---
A::~A() = default;
// main.cpp -------------------------------
#include "a.h"
int main() {A a;}
If the definition of constructor A::A()
is moved to the header a.h
, the compiler will complain error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘B’
. Why is this happening? Is there any reference material about this?
BTW, I'm using gcc-7.5.0 on Ubuntu 18.04, with c++17 enabled.
Edit for @463035818_is_not_a_number in the comments. The complete error message is:
[1/2] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o
FAILED: CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o
/usr/bin/c++ -g -fdiagnostics-color=always -std=gnu++1z -MD -MT CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o -MF CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o.d -o CMakeFiles/t.dir/main.cpp.o -c /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/main.cpp
In file included from /usr/include/c++/7/memory:80:0,
from /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/a.h:2,
from /home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/main.cpp:1:
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h: In instantiation of ‘void std::default_delete<_Tp>::operator()(_Tp*) const [with _Tp = B]’:
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:263:17: required from ‘std::unique_ptr<_Tp, _Dp>::~unique_ptr() [with _Tp = B; _Dp = std::default_delete<B>]’
/home/user/Tests/UniquePtrTest/a.h:5:3: required from here
/usr/include/c++/7/bits/unique_ptr.h:76:22: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘B’
static_assert(sizeof(_Tp)>0,
^
ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.
答案1
得分: 10
代码中提到的问题是A::A()
需要知道如何销毁ptr
,以防构造函数抛出异常。
一个示例代码如下:
#include <memory>
struct B {};
struct X{
X(){throw 42;}
};
struct A {
A() {}
~A() {};
std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
X x;
};
int main() {
A a;
}
生成的汇编代码如下:
A::A() [base object constructor]:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
push rbx
sub rsp, 24
mov QWORD PTR [rbp-24], rdi
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
mov rdi, rax
call std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B>>::unique_ptr<std::default_delete<B>, void>()
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
add rax, 8
mov rdi, rax
call X::X() [complete object constructor]
jmp .L6
mov rbx, rax
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
mov rdi, rax
call std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B>>::~unique_ptr() [complete object destructor]
mov rax, rbx
mov rdi, rax
call _Unwind_Resume
可以看到其中调用了std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B>>::~unique_ptr()
。
关于这个问题,你可以查阅C++标准文档,它定义了哪些函数/表达式需要完整类型。
实际上,没有太多关于这个问题的参考材料,因为你需要阅读C++标准文档来了解哪些函数/表达式需要完整类型。
当然,cppreference是一个质量较高且易读的参考资料,尽管我没有在那里找到这个特定用例。
特别是,这个问题在一个注释中提到了:
20.11.1.3.3 Destructor [unique.ptr.single.dtor]
[注 1:使用default_delete要求T是一个完整类型。 — 结束注]
英文:
The issue is that A::A()
needs to know how to destroy ptr
in case the constructor throws.
An example:
#include <memory>
struct B {};
struct X{
X(){throw 42;}
};
struct A {
A() {}
~A() {};
std::unique_ptr<B> ptr;
X x;
};
int main() {
A a;
}
generates:
A::A() [base object constructor]:
push rbp
mov rbp, rsp
push rbx
sub rsp, 24
mov QWORD PTR [rbp-24], rdi
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
mov rdi, rax
call std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::unique_ptr<std::default_delete<B>, void>()
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
add rax, 8
mov rdi, rax
call X::X() [complete object constructor]
jmp .L6
mov rbx, rax
mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbp-24]
mov rdi, rax
call std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::~unique_ptr() [complete object destructor]
mov rax, rbx
mov rdi, rax
call _Unwind_Resume
showing the call to std::unique_ptr<B, std::default_delete<B> >::~unique_ptr()
.
> Is there any reference material about this?
Technically, yes, you can read the Standard which defines which functions/expressions require a complete type.
Practically, not so much, since you have to read the Standard which defines which functions/expressions require a complete type.
Of course cppreference is of high quality and actually readable, although I did not find this use case there.
In particular, this issue is mentioned in a note
20.11.1.3.3 Destructor [unique.ptr.single.dtor]
> [Note 1 : The use of default_delete requires T to be a complete type. — end note]
答案2
得分: 3
你看到的错误是std::default_deleter
针对未定义行为的保护。
当你实例化构造函数std::unique_ptr<B>::unique_ptr
的定义时,也会实例化std::default_delete<B>::operator()
的定义。在其中有一个断言
static_assert(sizeof(B) > 0);
它检查不完整类型。这可以防止删除不完整类型,这是未定义的行为。参见https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71821115/incomplete-types-with-shared-ptr-and-unique-ptr。
但是,为什么将A::A()
的定义移到头文件中会导致错误,而将其放在实现文件中却不会呢?
事实证明,只声明成员std::unique_ptr<B>
只会实例化其构造函数的_声明_,而不会实例化其定义。因此,如果A::A()
在实现文件中定义,那么std::default_delete<B>::operator()
的定义也只有在那时才会被实例化,此时B
是一个完整的类型。
英文:
The error you see is std::default_deleter
guarding against undefined behaviour for you.
When you instantiate the definition of the constructor std::unique_ptr<B>::unique_ptr
, the definition of std::default_delete<B>::operator()
is also instantiated. Within which is an assertion
static_assert(sizeof(B) > 0);
which checks for incomplete types. This prevents any possible deletion of an incomplete type, which is undefined behaviour. See also https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71821115/incomplete-types-with-shared-ptr-and-unique-ptr.
But why does moving the definition of A::A()
to the header cause an error but not if it's in the implementation file?
As it turns out, simply declaring the member std::unique_ptr<B>
only instantiates the declaration of its constructor but not the definition. Therefore if A::A()
is defined in the implementation file, the definition of std::default_delete<B>::operator()
is also only instantiated then, by which B
is a complete type.
通过集体智慧和协作来改善编程学习和解决问题的方式。致力于成为全球开发者共同参与的知识库,让每个人都能够通过互相帮助和分享经验来进步。
评论